IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2924 of 2009 Between: 1 Mutyala Somasekhara Rao S/o.Suryanarayana Murthy R/o. HIG-10, Sagar Nagar, Visakhapatnam -43. 2 Mutyala Murthy Bharat S/o.SomasekharaRao R/o.Bary Castle Apartments, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam. 3 Kotipalli Padma W/o.Murthy Bharat R/o.Bary Castle Apartments, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Surya Bagh, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Potinamallayyapalem Police Station, Potinamallayyapalem, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Pindi Venkatagiri S/o.P.Appa Rao, R/o.Door No. 14-24-38/B, Dadi Bogalingam Street, Gavarapapek, Anakapally-2, Visakhapatnam. 4 Pindi Bhaskar S/o.P.Appa Rao, R/o.Door No. 14-24-38/B, Dadi Bogalingam Street, Gavarapapek, Anakapally-2, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in interfering with the civil disputes of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the official respondents not to interfere in civil disputes of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the house bearing No. HIG 110 in an extent of 303.33 sq. yards, plinth area 158 sq. yards in Sy. No. 132 situated at Sagarnagar, Visakhapatnam and the 2nd petitioner is his son and the 3rd petitioner is his wife. They assert that there are civil disputes among them and the 3rd respondent, and that the 3rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,34,294/- and also filed a petition under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment before the judgment and that petition was ordered on 24.1.2009 and accordingly, their property was attached. While so, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the police officials of Potinamallayyapalem Police Station and some anti-social elements confined the petitioners to their house under lock and key. When the petitioners lodged a complaint, dated 11.2.2009 about their illegal detention to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they are not taking action against them, but are interfering in civil disputes. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the official respondents not to interfere in civil disputes relating to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and also produced a record before this Court. Both the documents reveal that the 1st petitioner sold away his property to several persons. In order to prevent the law and order problem at the disputed house, the 2nd respondent registered a suo motu case against the 1st petitioner, unofficial respondents and others in Cr.No.70 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and submitted a detailed report to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Chingadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 19.2.2009 requesting him to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to bind over both the parties and the same is pending. Except registering a case, he never interfered with the civil disputes. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, and having regard to the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, as is evident from the material papers placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to give any direction to the official respondents, particularly when it is their case that they have not interfered with the civil disputes. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th March, 2009 bcj