IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15277 of 2005 Between: Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam rep., by its Executive Officer, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Multizone-I, Kakinada. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam. 3 Smt.V.Andalamma, w/o late Ramulu, 4 Vavilapalli Satyanarayana, s/o late Ramulu, 5 Vavilapalli Prasad, s/o late Ramulu, 6 Smt.Sanapala Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Laxmi Narasimham, 7 Smt.Annepu Sugunamma, w/o Eswara Rao, 8 Smt.Nambada Uma, w/o Bhaskara Rao, 9 Smt.Ch.Saradamba, w/o Desembar Naidu, Respondents 3 to 9 are residents of D.No.39-17-50, Madhavadara, Visakhapatnam. 10 Smt.Sanapala Varalakshmi, w/o Sreerama Murthy, D.No.9-18-94, Madhavanagar, Visakhapatnam District. 11 Smt.Nakka Radha, w/o N.V.Ramesh Kumar, D.No.39-8-17, Muralinagar (NE), Madhavadara, Visakhapatnam. 12 Md.Arif Ali Khan, s/o Ishaka Ali Khan, 13 Afzal Khan, s/o Ravoofullah Khan, 14 Md.Vaseem Mohammed Khan, s/o Rafi Ahmed Khan, 15 Md.Insaf Khan, s/o Yusis Khan, Respondents 12 to 15 are residents of D.No.39-8-39/6, Muralinagar (NE) Madhavanagar, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 8: MR. G.Sudheer For MR. M.P.CHANDRAMOULI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to quash order, dated 31.12.2004 passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri G.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8 submitted that after filing of the present writ petition, their clients filed civil suit being O.S.No.375 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam questioning order, dated 25.11.2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Visakhapatnam passed in O.A.No.4 of 2002, and, therefore, his clients are not interested in defending order, dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada, which is impugned in this writ petition. He further submitted that his clients have no objection, if the said order is set aside without prejudice to their rights to pursue their pending suit. As regards respondent No.2, the office report shows that notice was served on her on 27.07.2005 and she has not entered appearance. At the hearing, no one appeared for her. In view of the representation of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8, as noted above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside without prejudice to the right of respondent Nos.3 to 8 to prosecute their suit, which is stated to be pending. This order shall not be understood as this Court expressing any opinion on the maintainability or otherwise of the suit filed by respondent Nos.3 to 8. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2008. kvni