IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14515 of 2008 Between: B. Lakshman Rao S/o Papaiah R/o R. No. 410, yamuna Block, Kamshetty Enclave, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police, nacharam PS, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 2 Dr. L. Swapna W/o Dr. G. Suneel Kumar R/o D. No. 9-7-110/1, Maruthinagar, Snathoshnagar, Hyderabad. 3 M. Narayana Reddy S/o Not Known to the petitioner R/o Plot No:8 a.P. A.U. Colony, Gaddiannaram X road, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in calling the petitioner to the police station and threatening him to vacate and hand over the possession of open plot Nos: 157 part, 158 & 159 admeasuring 627 sq. yards in total, in Sy. Nos: 254 & 259 situated at Kartikeya Nagar, Block No":1 Nacharam (V), Uppal (M), R.R. district to the 2nd & 3rd respondents as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 2nd & 3rd respondents and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in calling the petitioner to the police station and threatening him to vacate and handover the possession of open plot Nos.157 part, 158 and 159 measuring 627 square yards in total, in Sy.Nos.254 and 259 situated at Kartikeya Nagar Block No.1, Nacharam village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the respondents 2 and 3, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he filed suit in O.S.No.1113 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction against respondents 2 and 3 herein. Pending the suit, ad-interim injunction was sought in I.A.No.1107 of 2008 and the Court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo existing as on the date of the order i.e., 25-06- 2008 till 18-07-2008, to which date the I.A. stands posted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said order passed on 25-06-2008 still subsists and the other side has filed counter and vacate stay petition and it is at that stage. The grievance of the petitioner is while that being so the first respondent is asking the petitioner to attend the police station and to hand over the suit schedule property to the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, this writ petition. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, Mr.B.Narayana Reddy, strenuously contended that the Court below has granted only status-quo orders and as on the date of the status- quo orders granted on 25-06-2008 the respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of the property. In the guise of the status-quo orders when the petitioner was trying to interfere into thier possession they filed a complaint before the police. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Once the dispute is pending before a Civil Court and a Civil Court has granted status-quo orders, it is for the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to work out their remedies by approaching the Civil Court and not by going to police station. Even if the respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of the property, it is always open for them to approach the Civil Court and seek police protection, if necessary, but not directly going to the police station. As of now this is a premature stage. The counter and vacate stay petition filed by the respondents is pending under consideration before the Civil Court. Under those circumstances, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent not to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 unless until there is a direction from the Civil Court in this regard. No costs. __________________ 17th November, 2008 SKM