IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24650 of 2008 Between: Sultan Maqsood S/o. Sultan Saleem R/o. H.No.3-5-593, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trespassing into the petitioner's premises bearing No.2- 4-631/2, situated at Sundarnagar, Hyderabad-500 027, and dumping some articles in the room and locking the premises without any authority of law, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, null and void and consequently direct the respondent to open the lock of the petitioner's premises bearing No.2-4-631/2, situated at Sundarnagar, Hyderabad-500 027, by taking away the dumped articles stored by him, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.JAYAWANTRAJ Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) This writ petition has been ﬁled by the decree- holder in O.S. No.713 of 1985 (O.S. No.1422 of 1983) questioning the action of the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in locking the premises claimed to be bearing door No.2-4-631/2, Sundarnagar, Hyderabad and keeping some articles therein. The writ petitioner sought for a direction to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to open the lock of the said premises and take away the articles kept therein. The writ petitioner claimed that he ﬁled O.S. No.713 of 1985 (O.S. No.1422 of 1983) for recovery of possession of the house No.2-4-630, 631 and 631/2, Sundarnagar, Kachiguda, Amberpet road, Hyderabad, mesne proﬁts and costs, which was decreed on 31-03-1990. Though the 1st defendant therein ﬁled C.C.C.A. No.119 of 1998 before the High Court, it was withdrawn by him by ﬁling C.C.C.A.M.P. No.874 of 2006, which was ordered on 02-01-2007. The writ petitioner claimed that he ﬁled E.P. No.24 of 1997 in O.S. No.713 of 1985 before the XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which E.A. No.13 of 2007 ﬁled by Smt. Sultana Begum and 4 others was allowed on 05-05- 2007 in respect of house No.2-4-629. While so, the Inspector of Police, Kachiguda police station addressed the Executing Court requesting for a direction to the Municipal authorities to earmark the true municipal number of the disputed house, as both the parties are claiming the same premises to be bearing Nos.2-4-629 and 2-4-631/2. The Executing Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad through the Assistant Commissioner, Circle No.3 to furnish the records and after enquiry, issued the delivery warrant on being convinced that the two properties are separate and diﬀerent. The Bailiﬀ delivered the property on 24-10-2008 at 3-30 P.M. in the presence of two witnesses under a panchanama to the decree-holder and submitted his report to the Court on the next day. However, the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad came to the premises along with police on 24-10-2008 at 10 P.M. and informing that he came under the oral instructions of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, locked and sealed the premises by dumping articles, on which the writ petitioner submitted representations to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Registrar of the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition. While the learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the contentions and desired the keys of the locked premises to be delivered to the decree- holder/petitioner, Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court brought to the notice of the Court by ﬁling the relevant papers that Smt. Sultana Begum ﬁled a petition before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 24-10-2008 alleging that the door No.2-4-629 was delivered instead of door No.2-4-631/2 and the Field Assistant/Bailiff could not have delivered the said property to the decree-holder in spite of E.A. No.13 of 2007 being allowed and that consequently, the Chief Judge directed the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad to inspect the property as early as possible, verify the door numbers and restore the possession of house No.2-4-629 to Smt. Sultana Begum, if she was dispossessed from house No.2-4-629. Acting on the said directions, the Secretary inspected the site along with the Superintendent of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, kept the house articles, which were found lying on the foot-path, in the premises in question after noting the door numbers of the two premises and locked and sealed the doors of the premises in question. He also instructed the Bailiﬀ to guard the property with the assistance of police till further orders. The learned Standing Counsel also brought to notice that thereafter the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderebad directed the keys kept in a sealed cover and all the relevant papers, to be transmitted to the Executing Court for necessary action. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that as the Executing Court is seized of the matter involving disputed questions of fact, the matter may be left to be determined by the said Court. It is well settled that in considering a request for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, the High Court will not go into and determine the disputed questions of fact. Irrespective of the justification, propriety or the legality of the procedure adopted in the disputed premises being locked, the fact remains that there is a subsisting controversy between the writ petitioner and Smt. Sultana Begum as to whether under the guise of execution of the decree in question, the decree-holder is attempting to get delivery of possession of the premises No.2-4-629 in stead of premises No.2-4-631/2. The right of Smt. Sultana Begum to premises No.2-4-629 has been upheld in the claim petition ﬁled by her and it is not claimed that the said orders in the claim petition were challenged in any manner so far. Though the Bailiﬀ is claimed to have delivered possession of only the premises No.2-4-631/2 when Smt. Sultana Begum, the successful claimant in E.A. No.13 of 2007, approached the Chief Judge, City Civil Court/the Chairman, Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad complaining that her premises No.2- 4-629 were delivered under the guise of execution of the decree, the Chief Judge appears to have reacted bona ﬁde in the interests of justice. Irrespective of the question whether the execution proceedings could have been so interfered with or not in law, now that the keys of the disputed premises and all the relevant papers are transmitted to the Executing Court for necessary action, the matter is better left to be determined on merits in accordance with law by the Executing Court in view of the limited and restricted scope of writ of Mandamus, wherein any deep probe into the complicated questions of fact will not be undertaken to determine any questions in controversy between the parties in a civil dispute. Accordingly, the Executing Court is directed to determine the matter in accordance with law on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible and subject to the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-11-2008 Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}