IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12408 of 2009 Between: Mohd.Ather Altaf S/o.Mohd.Altaf-ur-Rahman R/o.Plot No.12, Raghava Colony, Toli Chowki,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad 2 The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, rep.by its Addl.Engineer, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 3 T.Venkateswar Rao S/o.T.Narayana of APCPDCL, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 4 Mohd.Sadath Ali Khan S/o.Mohd.Jafar AliKhan R/o.H.no.9-4-86/262/3,Salarjung colony Hyderabhad 5 Mohd.Hyder Ali Khan S/o.Mohd.Jafar AliKhan R/o.H.no.9-4-86/262/3,Salarjung colony Hyderabhad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.MADHAVA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3, in shifting the electrical meter from petitioner’s premises bearing No.4-135/A/74, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. A perusal of the record shows that there is a dispute over the abovementioned property between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.442 of 2009 for perpetual injunction and Interlocutory Application No.37 of 2009 for temporary injunction against one Hussain Bin Salam and another on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On contest, the learned VII Junior Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, vide Order, dated 20-03-2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the said injunction Order has become final. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that despite existence of the said order of injunction, respondent No.3 highhandedly shifted the electrical meter from the petitioner’s premises bearing No.4-135/A/74, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, to Plot No.69 at the instance of respondent No.4. At the hearing, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3 for installation of electrical meter, that when respondent No.3 inspected the premises, he found that the property claimed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 is common and that as he did not find any electrical meter therein, he installed the same. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that after some time, respondent No.4 again approached respondent No.3 with a complaint that the electrical meter was stolen and he also furnished a copy of the First Information Report, in connection with the said incident, and that thereafter, respondent No.3 installed a new meter. He, therefore, submitted that respondent No.3 has not dismantled any electrical meter but installed a new one as he did not find any electrical meter therein during his first inspection and as the same was allegedly stolen, the second one was installed in the same premises. Though Sri Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the civil Court recorded specific finding regarding the identity of the property and also the petitioner’s possession thereof and that therefore, respondent No.3 has acted arbitrarily and high handedly by removing the electrical meter from the petitioner’s premises and installing the same at the same premises in the name of respondent No.4. In view of the subsistence of serious dispute over the property in question, it is not possible for this Court to decide the questions, as to whether the electrical meter was actually in existence and the same was dismantled by respondent No.3 and a new meter was installed in the name of respondent No.4, in this Writ Petition. It is also noticed from the order of injunction passed by the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that respondent No.4 herein was not a party to the suit. The learned Counsel, however, stated that respondent No.4 is a General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.5. In the opinion of this Court, the appropriate forum for the petitioner to ventilate his grievance is the VII Junior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which entertained the suit and granted the order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file necessary application before the said Court for appropriate orders against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the same relief, which is claimed in this Writ Petition. On such an application being filed, the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, may dispose of the same with reasonable expedition. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.16044 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. .______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th June, 2009 lur