HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.8653 of 2010 Dated: 07-06-2010 Between: Srivathsavai Venkatathi Raju & 2 Others …Petitioners AND District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, rep. by its Presiding Officer & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.8653 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By means of filing this writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioners seek to set aside the award passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur-1st respondent herein in Pre-Litigation Case No.1451/2009, dated 7.12.2009 to which, the respondents 2 to 5 are parties. Petitioners claim to be the agreement holders of the schedule property, dated 6.8.2007 instituted a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur on 19.10.2009 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale against the second respondent-owner of the property. During the pendency of the said suit, they also obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.2914 of 2009 restraining the second respondent from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of any third party. In spite of the order of injunction working against him, the second respondent along with his wife-third respondent herein in collusion with respondents 4 and 5 compromised the matter in Pre-Litigation Case No.1451 of 2009 on 7.12.2009 suppressing the pendency of the suit, to defraud the plaintiffs. When the subject-matter of the Pre-Litigation Case and the suit is one and the same, according to the petitioners, the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned award. When the petitioners filed an application seeking to set aside the impugned award obtained by the respondents 2 to 5, the same was returned by the first respondent with an endorsement ‘the matter has already been settled and award was passed on 7.12.2009’. Hence, the petitioners seek to set aside the impugned award. Since the petitioners are not parties to the award proceedings and when the suit filed by them for specific performance of agreement of sale is pending adjudication, they can work out their remedies in the said suit by impleading the subsequent purchasers, if any. It is also brought to our notice that on coming to know of the impugned award, respondents 4 and 5, who are said to be subsequent purchasers of the property purchased from the second respondent contrary to the injunction order, were already impleaded in the suit as per the orders in I.A.No.71 of 2010, dated 25.3.2010. If that be the case, it is for the civil Court to frame appropriate issues and decide the matter whether the award passed by the first respondent binds on the petitioners or not. Since the petitioners have already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court for specific performance to which, the awardees were also impleaded as parties, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ JUNE 07, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.