IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27341 of 2011 BETWEEN Mucha Sreenivasa Rao and others. ... PETITIONER AND Gudupudi Tirumala Rao and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. SURENDER RAO The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent. Though respondents 4 and 5 are served, none appeared. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has ﬁled counter aﬃdavit on behalf of the third respondent. 2. The writ petition is ﬁled seeking writ of prohibition by alleging that the suit being O.S.No.104 of 2011 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, is contrary to the deed of partnership dated 21.02.2003. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiﬀ/ﬁrst respondent herein sought a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties of the ﬁrm. The defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit are the petitioners in the writ petition. They approached this Court aggrieved by the ﬁling of the said suit as well as by grant of temporary injunction in favour of the ﬁrst respondent herein. It is alleged that there is a registered partnership deed and a clause as to arbitration for resolution of all disputes but the same was not brought to the notice of the civil Court and the said suit was filed. 3. I am unable to appreciate as to how a writ of prohibition could be sought for especially as the petitioner has already ﬁled an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide I.A.No.1196 of 2011 and the said application is said to be pending before the trial Court. Petitioner also states that he has ﬁled written statement and he is contesting the suit. Obviously, it cannot be said that the suit suﬀers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such, the writ of prohibition, in any case, cannot be sought for by the petitioners. Hence, declining the main relief sought for, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, referred to above, deserves to be considered and disposed of at an early dated. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, this Court is sure, would expeditiously hear and dispose of the said application in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 3, 2011 Note: Office to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam (B/o) DSK