IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14198 of 2010 Between: Mallela Venkateswara Rao ... PETITIONER a n d The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl. Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Mallela Venkateswara Rao assailing the action of the Circle Inspector of Police, Khammam I Town, Khammam district – third respondent in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of house plot ad-measuring 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.236/A in Khanapuram Haveli Gramapanchayat Khammam Urban Mandal Khammam District in spite of interim injunction order in I.A.No.399 of 2010 in O.S.No.295 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam. 2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the plot admeasuring 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.236/A in Khanapuram Haveli Grampanchayat, Khammam Urban Mandal. He filed O.S.No.295 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam for perpetual injunction against Y. Prabhakar Reddy who has been arrayed as the fourth respondent herein and two others viz., Lingam Suryanarayana and Lingam Nageswar Rao. He also moved I.A.No.399 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction and secured ad-interim injunction. While so, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India apprehending interference of his peaceful possession and enjoyment by the third respondent at the instance of fourth respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured ad-interim injunction in respect of property in his occupation by approaching the Civil Court, and despite the order passed by the Civil Court, the third respondent is attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. As seen from the material brought on record, the dispute between the petitioner and 4th respondent (Y. Prabhakar Reddy) has already been seized by the Civil Court and the petitioner obtained necessary interim orders with regard to protection of his property in his occupation. The contention of the petitioner that the third respondent is interfering with his possession despite interim orders passed by the Civil Court does not stand to reason. 5. If it is the case of the petitioner that 4th respondent has been interfering with his possession and enjoyment despite the order passed in Civil Court, he got a remedy before the Civil Court by making an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such is the situation, I am of the view that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 22, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14198 of 2010 June 22, 2010