B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Court s extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioner in a matter which is basically and essentially a civil dispute between the petitioner and Respondents 3 and 5. The suit already filed by the petitioner in O. S. No. 37 of 1995 on the file of the learned V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is still pending and therefore, whatever observations that are made while disposing of this writ petition should be treated as meant for disposal of this writ petition alone and such observations, if any, shall have no bearing what so ever upon the pending civil proceedings between the parties. It may not be really necessary to notice all the facts except such facts which are necessary for disposal of mis writ petition.

( 2 ) EVEN according to the petitioner, the writ petition is filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of respondents 3 and 4 and the conduct of Respondent No. 4 herein. It is alleged that the conduct of the respondent Hotel is in gross violation of judicial order and this affects and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, home is made as a party to this writ petition, nothing is mentioned against the government and the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself does not disclose any cause against the 1st respondent. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to why the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police is also impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ petition. All the allegations levelled and averments made and the contentions raised are against the respondents 3 to 5.

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner filed O. S. No. 37 of 1995 on the file of the V Addl. Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration declaring that the 3rd respondent herein is not entitled to adjust the advance payment of Rs. 1 lakh made by the petitioner towards the dues payable by H. E. H. the Nizam s Private Estate, and to grant a decree of mandatory injunction permitting the plaintiff, his family members to use and have access to Room No. 102 in Gateway Hotel, Banjara hills, Hyderabad (3rd respondent) till the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the petitioner is adjusted till the date when the petitioner is given possession of room No. 102 in the said Hotel and in the alternative to pass a decree for refund of advance payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner along with future interest at 24% p. a. from the date of the suit till realisation and permit the petitioner to remove the belongings lying in Room No. 102 in the said Hotel. Such a simple suit led to filing of many interlocutory applications between the parties.

( 4 ) IN the said suit, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 750 of 1995 under Or. 39 rule 1 C. P. C. to allow him to have the access for use of Room No. 102 in the said hotel which was allowed by the trial Court on 27-7-1995 and the 3rd respondent hotel preferred an appeal C. M. A. No. 983 of 1995 in mis Court The 5th respondent Nizam filed an application I. A. No. 824/95 under Or. 26 Rule9 CPC for appointment of Commissioner to take inventory of articles lying in Room no. 102 for the purpose of ascertaining the articles belonging to him. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the same day against which the 5th respondent preferred a C. R. P. 2575/1995. This Court by an order dated 10-10-1995 disposed of both the C. M. A. 983/95 and C. R. P. No. 2575/95. Civil revision Petition and the CM. A. were allowed by this Court directing the trial court to appoint a Commissioner to take inventory of the goods in Room no. 102 of the said Hotel and keep them in the custody of the Hotel itself till the disposal of the suit. However, the properties which are not liable for attachment under Sec. 60 of the C. P. C. were directed to be released and handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner herein, however, preferred L. P. A. No. 146 of 1995

Click Here to Read the rest of this document