HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27897 of 2011 Date: 12.10.2011 Between: M.Rajeshwari ..... Petitioner AND: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatin, Reptd by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri C.Damodar Reddy Standing Counsel for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Prohibition to restrain the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, from proceeding with O.S.No.390 of 2010 instituted by respondent No.3 against respondent No.1. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that there is a serious title dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.3 on the other. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has encroached an extent of 28 square yards of land over the plot belonging to her and has been raising construction. When respondent No.1 was approached by the petitioner to take action and the said respondent, in turn, sought to take action, respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.390 of 2010 in the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and secured an order of ad interim injunction against respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the civil Court ought not to have entertained the said suit. At the hearing, Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Advocate General V. State of A.P.,[1] in support of his submission that the civil Court ought to have observed restraint in entertaining the suit filed by respondent No.3 against respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel with reference to the judgment of this Court referred supra. In my opinion, the judgment in Advocate General (cited supra) has not laid down an absolute proposition that the civil Courts should not entertain the suits in respect of the proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporations or Municipalities. This Court has only administered a caution to the civil Courts in entertaining the suits which are on the face of it devoid of merit. This judgment therefore cannot be made basis for issuing a Writ of Prohibition against the civil Court in respect of adjudication of O.S.No.390 of 2010 because it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. Whether the said suit should have been entertained or not depends upon the facts of the case and the same can be resolved only after the same is heard after full-fledged trial. The petitioner has admittedly filed an application for her impleadment in the said suit and the same is pending. The petitioner is entitled to pursue the said remedy, and if her application is not being disposed of, she shall be free to avail appropriate remedy for disposal of her application by the civil Court. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.34400 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th October 2011 DR [1] 2004(2) ALT 460