IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 OF 2010 Between: Dr. V. Gunasekhar Reddy .....PETITIONER AND Prakash Dora and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.1766 of 2010 in O.P.No.911 of 2010, on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the learned III Additional Chief Judge granted permission to respondent No.1 herein (Sri Prakash Dora) to participate in election. 2. For better appreciation, I may refer the order passed in I.A.No.1766 of 2010 in O.P.No.911 of 2010, by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which reads as here under: “Heard. Perused record. It is submitted that the petitioner is not being allowed to file nomination in election. In view of submission, I feel the petitioner can be permitted to participate in election process subject to his eligibility otherwise he may be put to irreparable loss. Under these circumstances ad- interim injunction is granted directing respondents to permit the petitioner to contest elections subject to his eligibility and his candidature is subject to the result of this petition and issue urgent notice to respondents by 02.07.2010 and Order 39 Rule 3 A shall be complied.” 3. When the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission , Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 (Prakash Dora), who is the petitioner in O.P.No.911 of 2010. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Byelaws of the society, all legal cases concerning Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (I.E.T.E.) Head Quarters shall lie within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only and therefore, the O.P. filed by respondent No.1 herein in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is liable to be dismissed in limini. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the order impugned in the O.P. is ex facie illegal and therefore, interim order granted by the trial Court does not warrant interference. 6. The order passed by the trial Court is an ad-interim injunction. The petitioner herein as well can file counter and invite orders thereon on merits. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file counter in I.A.No.1766 of 2010 in O.P.No.911 of 2010 and invite orders thereon. The trial Court has to dispose of I.A.No.1766 of 2010 in O.P.No.911 of 2010 within ten days from the date of filing of the counter by the petitioner herein (respondent No.3 in the O.P.). There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J May 26, 2010 MD/IVD