IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30850 of 2010 BETWEEN Bayanagari Lakshmi Devi. ... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent 1 and 2 in interfering with the civil disputes, which exist between the petitioner and the third respondent herein. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a civil dispute exists between him and the third respondent with regard to house bearing D.No.14/395 situated at Kamalanagar, Ananthapur. The third respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.246 of 1996 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the aforesaid property and the same was decreed. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing an appeal being A.S.No.62 of 2000, which was dismissed and the petitioner preferred a second appeal, which is pending on the file of this Court. 3. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that when an appeal filed by him is pending consideration, at the instance of the third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with the possession of the petitioner with regard to the very same property, which is the subject matter of the suit. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on the earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. 5. Today, based on the written instructions sent by the second respondent dated 10.12.2010, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the third respondent and one B. Suresh lodged a complaint on 23.10.2010 stating that one N. Dorababu – General Power of Attorney of the petitioner is demanding them to put their signatures on the documents of the petitioner and hence, they requested to take action against them. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said complaint, the Circle Inspector of Police has endorsed the same to the Head Constable, who in turn advised the GPA of the petitioner to approach the Court of law, as the matter is civil in nature. It is submitted that except the said receipt of the complaint, referred to above, there is no other interference in the civil disputes, as alleged by the petitioner. 6. When a complaint is filed by the third respondent on 23.10.2010 it is for the police to enquiry into the same, therefore, it cannot be said that they are interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner. As it is stated that pursuant to the said complaint, the police advised the GPA of the petitioner that the matter is civil in nature and to approach the competent Court of law, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition basing on the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that there is no interference with the civil disputes existing between the petitioner and the third respondent. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 28, 2010 DSK