HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13985 of 2011 Date:16.08.2011 Between: D.Ramesh ..... Petitioner AND The Adoni Municipality, Adoni, Kurnool District, reptd., by its Commissioner and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Sashidharan Naidu For Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Municipality. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in preventing respondent No.2 from making illegal construction in Sy.No.83, Ward No.21, Saibaba Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool District, as arbitrary and illegal. In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he has filed O.S.No.74 of 2011 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, against respondent No.2 for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the property. This Court has earlier directed the petitioner to produce a copy of the plaint. Accordingly, the petitioner has produced before the Court the plaint copy, a perusal of which would show that the petitioner sought for a permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 herein from making construction by violating the building rules and also for mandatory injunction for removal of pillars erected by him in violation of the building rules on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. In my opinion, the petitioner having already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not entitled to indulge in multiplicity of proceedings. Even though respondent No.1 is not impleaded as a party to the suit, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a comprehensive suit against both the respondents herein. The petitioner cannot be permitted to split the cause of action and maintain parallel proceedings for similar reliefs. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek a comprehensive relief, if necessary, by impleading respondent No.1 and also amending the prayer in the suit. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.16914 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16thAugust, 2011 DR