THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26170 of 2007 Dated 09th August, 2011 Between: Smt.P.Rama Devi …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Tank Bund, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt.D.Padmavathi For Sri D.Goverdhanachari The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not removing the unauthorised construction made by respondent No.2 on the passage adjacent to premises bearing No.SRT 370, 1-1-379/210A (old No.1-1-379/210, Industrial Labour Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadapally, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 grabbed the passage forming part of road towards the western side of her property and raised illegal construction for commercial use. That the written complaint given by her to respondent No.1 has not yielded any positive result and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits, wherein both of them have raised the plea of suppression of material facts by the petitioner, namely, that her filing O.S.No.1138 of 1999 against respondent No.1 and the husband of respondent No.2 for the same relief as claimed in this writ petition, its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in the said suit. Respondent No.1 filed a copy of the judgment and decree, dated 09.06.2005, in O.S.No.1138 of 1999. I have carefully perused the said judgment, wherein the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad after exhaustive consideration of the evidence on record held as under: “In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the plaintiff failed to establish that the plaintiff is enjoying the passage either exclusively or as a common passage and due to the illegal construction made by the first defendant she sustained substantial injury for her ingress and egress and that the plaintiff also failed to establish her easementary right of air and light. Hence I find that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Apart from all these facts, the plaintiff filed this suit by contending that the passage belongs to A.P.H.B. and the first defendant illegally constructed zinc shed in the municipal No.1-1-379/210 in SRT No.370/9 and filed this suit for the relief of mandatory injunction with a prayer for removal of the shed over the premises bearing No.1-1-379/210 shown in red colour in this sketch plan situated at Industrial Labour Colony, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad western side of the plaintiff’s property.” At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact of his client filing the suit and her failure to succeed therein. He has also not disputed that the said judgment and decree was confirmed in A.S.No.56 of 2007 vide judgment, dated 24.04.2007. In my opinion, the petitioner having lost the suit comprehensively cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the same relief. Such conduct constitutes abuse of process of law. The writ petition is therefore dismissed on this ground. For indulging in vexatious litigation by abusing the process of law, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to respondent No.2. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34133 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th August, 2011 VGB