The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil,ad in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents no. 3 and 4 police to handover the seized premises of the petitioner House bearing No. 8-2-293t82tJ11117O, Plot No.70, Road No.71, Phase lll, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. RAMA KRISHNA NAIK Counsel for tlhe Respondent No. 1 to 4z MR R. LAIXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME (rG) Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER o 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIVIJI VRIT PETITION No.37698 OF 2016 ORDER: This \7rit Petition is filed r:nder Article 226 of C-onstitution of India seeking the following relief/sr '... to issge a $[rfu, @er or Direction more particularly in $e nature of Sflrit of ]vfandamrs, declaxing the action of the respondens police seized the prcmises of ttre petirioner bearing lgus_e lt{o. 8-2- Zg3/SZ/llLi/70, Plot M.70, Road No.71, Phase Ill, Jubilee l{lls, I{rdenbad 5OOO33 with colhsion of the 5th respondent without have legal order frcm any comper€nr authgricy or coun and in "dy "alid .'iolation of-,hw and procedue and without conduct anyPanchanama as required under th," l"* by interfering imo the .cjvil.dlspugs. ilegel, inviolation of ttre law and principhs of nanlal i*tT- and also of Articles L4,21 and f-OOR-of Consdnrtion of India and "ioLtio" against the Apex corEt judgrnent reponed in Irlitha Kurnari Vs. Stare .i ttp and iorseqrreody dir.a thi respondents police to handover the horse to the petitioner by break open lock and to- pass such other order or orders ihat the Fbnble Coun may deem fit and proper in the interest of jrstice......"

2. I-Land lylr3hIama Krishna Naih learned counsel petitioner afld lV[rfiJ-axnrikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Crovernment Pleaderforlilome appeadng for respondent Nos.t to 4. 3 karned counsel for the petitioner submiaed that the rcspond€nt Police were attemPting to take possession of the 2 propery h:aring Door No. &2-293/52/NI/70 in viqladon of rhe oriden issued by the Court Receiver, flgh C-oun of Bombay and therefore, the present writ petition was filed seeking necessary directions

4. The karned Assista,nt Crovernurent Pleader for Home submitted that, in compliance *ith the directions of the C-oun Receiver, Flgh C-otrn of Bombay, the police nrerely provided prgtection uilrile srcps were b.i"g talen for lrcssession of the propert/, ;rnd that no independent ac.tion was undenaken by the respondenc police to take possession of the properry.

5. L,earned counsel for respon&nt No5 submiued that the petitioner':i son had borrowed cenain amouns, md upon default, steps wen3 initiated before the Coqn Receiver, F[gh C-oun of Bornbay. Pursuant to the Coun Receivet's orrders, when the propercy r%s prcposed to be taken into possession, police aid was sought. Hbwever, before the process could be completed, as the 3 enrir€ ourstandirg dges were cleaatd ttre contract vds accosdingly terminated. Thus, possession of the propercy was never acualtY talseru and the cause of action no lorger survives. \ i \

6. I have carcfullyperusd the material on recorrC. \ \ l. Frcm the pleadings, it is evident that possession of the propefly was prcPosed to be taften trnder the orrden of the Court Receiver, F[gh Court of Bomb ay, rr-Prusuance of the the steps initiated byropondent No.5. Ftrowever, as Per respondent No.5, the entire drres wer€ cleared, the contract was rcrminated on

23.L2.20L7, thereby bringing the proceedings before the Court Receiver, I{.gh court of Bomb ay,to a conclusion. g. In view of these devetqpments, uilrich rampired during the pendency of the Present petition, and sirrce the foundational cause itself has been resolved, the griwance raised by the petitioner does not survive for adjudicatio;:,':particularly as it smn& clarified that possession of the PrcPertywas ne\rer tdren' I ! I I I I I I I ! I I I I i , I i I I 4 l)

9. AccorrdinglS this perition is dismissed as infructuou. There shall be nc, orrder as ro costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if *y, shall stand closed ASSISTANT R,EGISTRAR -- "-,ED7-t-. vi.lave Letffir C //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI 8... RAMA KRISHNA NAIK, Advornte IOPUQI 2. One CC to SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN, Advocate IOPUCtr 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana touTl MMT BS Lw / t HIGH COURT DATED i$t2l0gl20zs ORDER WP.No.37698 of 2016 o t * 5HE1 tN: 10 lti\R /ll/fi * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS rs: q6 €