IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 38694 of 2014 BETWEEN Mohd. Abdul Jabbar and another AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners allege that respondent No.3 is summoning them and interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioners and one Sajjada Begum, against whom petitioners have already obtained a decree for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.105 of 2009, dated 19.12.2013, from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. The said Smt.Sajjada Begum is not impleaded as a party to this writ petition. However, alleging interference by the police, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader received from respondent No.3 show that the said Sajjada Begum also filed a complaint against the petitioners before respondent No.2, which is endorsed to respondent No.3 for examination. Accordingly, respondent No.3 summoned both the parties to verify the documents and found that the said Smt.Sajjada Begum also obtained orders from the civil court in O.S.No.157 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, by virtue of a decree dated 02.12.2011. However, respondent No.3 finds the dispute between the petitioners and the said Smt.Sajjada Begum being of a pure civil nature, both the parties were suggested to approach the civil court for resolution of the dispute and that respondent No.3-Police is not involved in the resolution of civil dispute between the parties.
4. In view of the said instructions, therefore, since the police and respondent No.3 is not interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioners and other party, no further orders are necessary.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 26, 2014 LMV