IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25223 of 2008 BETWEEN P. Soudhamani. ... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar, Hyderabad and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with her possession in respect of property bearing Nos.10-5-2/3/3C and 10-5-2/1/8/1/B in Sy.No.128 (old) corresponding to new Sy.No.27/AA, new Town Sy.No.17, admeasuring 804 and 737 sq. yards respectively situated at Masab Tank, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid properties and when some third parties interfered with her possession, she filed a suit being O.S.No.1748 of 2008 before the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction in I.A.No.1563 of 2008 with respect to the aforesaid properties shown as A and B schedule properties in the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of the third parties, who suffered injunction orders in the civil Court, the respondents are interfering with her possession without any valid reason and without jurisdiction. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court by order dated 17.11.2008 directed the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the civil dispute pending in O.S.No.1748 of 2008 whereunder injunction was granted restraining third parties from interfering with the suit schedule properties. The said order has been in force since then. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the various allegations of the petitioner and stated that as there was a claim by three different parties with regard to the possession of the aforesaid properties, a case was registered in Cr.No.482 of 2008 under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, a suo motu case was registered in Cr.No.567 of 2008 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a detailed report has been submitted to the Hon’ble Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is further stated that except registration of the aforesaid crimes they have not interfered with the civil disputes, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. From the allegations of the petitioner, as examined with reference to the counter affidavit, it is clear that with regard to the aforesaid properties there is a suit filed, which is pending before the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein injunction orders were obtained by the petitioner. If any third party claims possession with respect to the same properties, it is for them to approach the civil Court seeking vacation of the injunction order obtained by the petitioner but there cannot be any interference by respondents 1 and 2 with the civil disputes. 6. In view of the interim order passed by this Court and the averments in the counter affidavit that the respondents are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and with the civil disputes of the petitioner and the third parties, which is subject matter of the suit O.S.No.1748 of 2008. However, it is made clear that if there is any law and order problem or if any complaint is filed against the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 22, 2011 DSK