Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Attorney. No notice is being issued to respondents 4 to 9, in view of the order, which is being passed.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and his servants from respondents 4 to 9 and further to warn respondents 4 to 9 not to commit waste and damages in the property which the petitioner is a co-owner. The petitioner claims to be the co-owner of the property as mentioned in the Writ Petition. He submits that he had earlier filed a suit, O.S.No.29/2006 and on intervention of some mediators, the suit was withdrawn.
WP(C).34993/14 2
3. The dispute between the parties is essentially a dispute of civil nature, which can be adjudicated only by a competent Civil Court. This is not a case of police protection. We find that no direction can be issued in the Writ Petition. The petitioner may approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE vgs22/12/14 A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE