IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28955 of 2008 Between: 1 Shaik Ghouse S/o.Shaik Hussain Bichukunda(V) Nizamabad District 2 Shaik Hussain S/o Sk Munmal Bichukunda(V) Nizamabad District 3 Sk Fahim S/o Sk Salem Bickunala(V) &(M) Nizamabad District 4 Sk Saleem S/o Sk Hannumaiah Bickunala(V) &(M) Nizamabad District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer Bichkunda P.S Bitchukunda Nizamabad District 2 The Divisional Superintendent of Police Nizamabad District 3 S.K Jalal S/o Sk Mahaboob Bichukonda(V)&(M) Nizambad District 4 S.K Jaleel S/o Sk Mahaboob Bichukonda(V)&(M) Nizambad District 5 S.K Khaleel S/o Sk Mahaboob Bichukonda(V)&(M) Nizambad District 6 Sk.Kaleem S/o Sk Mahaboob Bichukonda(V)&(M) Nizambad District 7 Sk.Ghouse S/o Sk Hyder Sab Bichukonda(V)&(M) Nizambad District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR HOME Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7: MR. B.VIJAYSEN REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioners questioned the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in implementing order, dated 27.08.2008 passed in I.A.No.69 of 2007 in I.A.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.2 of 2007 by the Junior Civil Judge, Bichukonda, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners filed O.S.No.2 of 2007 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan (FAC, Banswada) (for short ‘the Civil Court’) seeking permanent injunction in respect of a property. In I.A.No.14 of 2007, the Civil Court passed an order of injunction, which was confirmed in CMA.No.3 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. As respondent Nos.3 to 7 were allegedly interfering with their possession of the property in question, the petitioners filed I.A.No.69 of 2007 in the Civil Court for police protection. By order, dated 27.08.2008, the Civil Court allowed the said I.A. and directed the police to protect the possession of the petitioners. Alleging that the said order is not complied with, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents placed before this Court the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bichukonda to the Civil Court on 22.10.2008, wherein it is stated that the police went to the property for giving protection but as the property in respect of which protection was sought for is house bearing No.7-143, the order could not be implemented. Therefore, he sought for clarification regarding discrepancy in the house number. Admittedly, this report was submitted by the police, before the petitioners filed this writ petition. Whether the clarification sought for by the police was bona fide or not is required to be decided by the Civil Court. When there is a dispute regarding the identity of the property and the police expressed their difficulty in executing the order of the Civil Court, it is neither proper nor appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petition and issue directions to the respondents. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court with appropriate application for passing necessary orders on the clarification sought for by the police. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 30.12.2008 is vacated and WPMP.No.37866 of 2008 is dismissed. WPMP.No.2931 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2009. kvni