THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16221 of 2008 Date:28.06.2011 Between: M.V.Maharshi ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri G.Rajesham for Sri B.Narasimha Sarma The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. There arises a stand off between two interlocutory orders passed by this Court in two different writ petitions. Earlier in W.P.No.11485 of 2005 filed by respondent No.5 herein invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against an ad interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a civil suit, this Court has granted a mandatory direction to the Police to take delivery of possession from the petitioner and handover the same to respondent No.5. Accordingly, the said interim order was complied with. However, eventually this Court after a serious contest by the petitioner, dismissed W.P.No.11485 of 2005 with a finding that the scope of judicial review to issue a writ of Certiorari against the orders of injunction being narrow, writ was not maintainable against the order of injunction. However, there was no direction for restoring the possession of the petitioner, who was dispossessed only on the strength of the interim direction granted by this Court in W.P.No.11485 of 2005. When the petitioner approached the Police for restoration of possession, they declined to accept his request on the ground that no such direction was granted by this Court in W.P.No.11485 of 2005. Feeling aggrieved by non-restoration of possession, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. After counter-affidavit was filed in this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 17.11.2008 directing the Police to restore possession of the flats in question to the petitioner. The possession was accordingly restored to the petitioner. Respondent No.5 has, however, come out with an application registered as W.V.M.P.No.3973 of 2008 for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to redeliver possession of the flats in question to him. In my opinion, this case attracts the principle of restitution envisaged in Section 144 C.P.C. Admittedly, respondent No.5 was given possession of flats in question only on the interim direction granted by this Court in W.P.No.11485 of 2005. When the said writ petition was dismissed, as a natural corollary the petitioner should have been placed in the same position as he would have been but for the interim direction granted in the said writ petition. Irrespective of the reasonableness or otherwise of granting an interim direction in this writ petition in pursuance of which possession was delivered to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of possession with the dismissal of W.P.No.11485 of 2005. As restoration of possession was already made in favour of the petitioner, no further direction need be granted in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving the parties free to pursue the civil litigation, which is pending before the competent civil Court. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition and in the light of the findings rendered hereinabove, W.V.M.P.No.3973 of 2008 is dismissed as wholly merit less. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th June, 2011 GHN