ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred from an order passed in a public interest litigation relating to certain premises near the existing Secunderabad Court complex. The public interest litigation had been filed by a person who claimed to be a litigant in the Secunderabad Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Government, Collector and Executive Engineer to start construction of the court building on the premises and if anyone created any obstruction the State Government was given the liberty of removing the obstruction. The order was passed on 11-2-2002. By an order dated 11-3-2002, this Court entertained the special leave petition filed by the appellant and directed the status quo as on that date to be maintained. Leave was granted after hearing the parties on 28-10-2002 and the interim order was to continue until the disposal of the appeal. 2. We are of the view that the High Court should not have entertained the public interest litigation at the behest of a litigant, particularly, when earlier petitions had been filed and disposed of by the same High Court. The first writ petition was filed by the appellant. That writ petition was dismissed on the ground that questions of title were involved which could not be decided in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the proper forum to decide such question was the jurisdictional civil court. 3. Three writ petitions were thereafter filed before the High Court. One of the writ petitions was filed by the appellant, one by Aanie Samra and the third by the Secunderabad Bar Association. The Court disposed of all the writ petitions by holding that the matter could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Despite this, the public interest litigation was entertained by the High Court and allowed. . 4. In our view the earlier orders were correct and the High Court should have relegated the parties to a civil suit. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and grant liberty to the appellant to file a civil suit within a period of six weeks from today. The interim order of status quo granted by this Court will continue for a period of seven weeks and will be subject to any interim order that may be passed by the civil court. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and grant liberty to the appellant to file a civil suit within a period of six weeks from today. The interim order of status quo granted by this Court will continue for a period of seven weeks and will be subject to any interim order that may be passed by the civil court. We are making it clear that the civil court should not be in any way inhibited in entertaining or disposing of any application for interim relief by reason either of the High Court's order or any of the observation therein or the interim order passed by this Court staying the operation of the High Court's order.' We are making it clear that all issues of fact and law are open for decision by the civil court. 5. The appeal is disposed of.