THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8945 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners feel aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in initiating the steps against respondent No.3. The petitioners state that themselves and their other family members have brought into existence a complex in premises bearing No.3-6-899 etc., situated at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and respondent No.3 has purchased a major portion of the building from various owners. The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the part of the first floor of the building and that respondent No.3 has covered the entire frontage of the elevation of the building with glasses blocking the ventilation to their premises. It is also alleged that respondent No.3 has been creating hurdles in the common passage, which is shown in the sanctioned plan. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the passage shown in the sanctioned plan is intact and that in respect of the very building, O.S.No.5905 of 2007 is pending in the Court of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The glasses, which were put as part of elevation, are said to have been removed in pursuance of the orders of this Court, to the extent it covers the portion of the building owned by the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioners is two fold. The first is that respondent No.3 has covered their portion of the building with glasses. This Court passed an interim order on 14.12.2009 requiring respondent No. 3 to remove the glasses to the extent of the building owned by the petitioners. The same has since been complied with. The grievance of the petitioners to that extent stands redressed. So far as the allegation as to the blocking of passage is concerned, respondent No.3 virtually denies the same. At any rate, a suit is pending before a Civil Court. If the petitioners are not parties to that suit, they can get themselves impleaded and ventilate their grievance. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.12.2009 kdl