THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5124 OF 2010 Dated 5th March, 2010 Between: Syed Abdul Razak …Petitioner And Ratabkak Agarwal and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.Madhava Rao Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for giving up respondent No.5. Accordingly, respondent No.5 is deleted from the array of parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the action of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in entertaining E.P.No.77 of 2009 and issuing process as without jurisdiction and contrary to judgment dated 17.03.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.2023 an 2024 of 2004. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to narrate the detailed facts mentioned in the affidavit. It will suffice to note that the case of the petitioner is that the respondents, who filed O.S.No.667 of 1985 (Old No.1162 of 1981) for specific performance of agreement of sale, eventually failed to get the relief though the case went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notwithstanding the same, the respondents with a mala fide intention have filed the above mentioned E.P for execution of sale deeds. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no relief of specific performance was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, the EP itself is misconceived. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to raise all legally sustainable pleas including the above plea before the learned Judge before whom the E.P is pending. Though the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, the relief claimed by him is in the nature of a writ of Prohibition. It cannot be said that the learned II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. Whether the relief claimed in the E.P can be granted in the light of the judgment and decree passed in the suit is required to be adjudicated by the learned Judge. In this view of the matter, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. As the petitioner apprehends that the respondents are likely to drag on the E.P proceedings to cause loss to the interests of the petitioner, the learned II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad shall dispose of the E.P within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.6598 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th March, 2010 Note: Issue C.C in a week vrn