THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23185 of 2011 Date:17.08.2011 Between: Amrjeet Singh and another. ..... Petitioners AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, reptd., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and eight others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy The Court made the following order at the admission stage: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not demolishing the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.5 to 9 over premises bearing Municipal Nos.6-3-790/6 to 9(Old) and 6- 3-801 to 803(New), Ameerpet, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the illegal constructions. I have heard Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners purchased certain shops in the premises developed by respondent Nos.5 to 7. When the said respondents sought to raise certain constructions, the petitioners filed O.S.No.773 of 2005 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking mandatory and perpetual injunctions against respondent Nos.5 to 9. The civil Court by its judgment and decree, dated 14.02.2006, granted multiple reliefs which inter alia include the relief as under: - “That perpetual injunction is granted restraining the defendants from making any construction in and over existing terrace of the complex Crystal Arcade in premises bearing M.No.6-3-790/6 to 9 and 6-3- 801 to 803, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.” In this Writ Petition, the petitioners specifically alleged that despite the said decree, respondent Nos.5 to 9 were making persistent attempts to raise constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan and that, in the past, the official respondents have thwarted those attempts. The petitioners have further stated that when respondent Nos.5 to 9 again made an attempt to raise structures over the terrace, the petitioners made representations to respondent No.1 who failed to take any action. The petitioners have therefore filed the present Writ Petition. In my opinion, by filing the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have indulged in multiplicity of proceedings. As noted above, they have already obtained a decree, whereunder respondent Nos.5 to 9 are inter alia restrained from making any construction in and over existing terrace in question. If these respondents have been violating the said decree of injunction, the petitioners are entitled to seek execution of the decree before the competent civil Court. Instead of availing such remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners have availed a wrong remedy by filing the present Writ Petition instead of executing the decree for perpetual injunction. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek execution of the decree. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.28381 and 28382 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th August, 2011 DR