ORDER : This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.5 as respondent No.4, respondent no.6 and respondents 7 to 9 in trying to grab the land admeasuring 173 square yards falling in Sy.no.158 situated at Ward No.21, Nageshwar Rao Nagar, Kothapet Village, L.B.Nagar Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at the instance and instigation of the 5th respondent as 4th respondent in collusion with the 6th respondent and 8th and 9th respondents in spite of the 5th respondent being aware of the order of status quo passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.389 of 2020 in O.S.No.788 of 2020 as illegal, arbitrary, criminal trespassing, violation of the orders of the status quo, contempt of the lower Court order, violation of the principles of natural justice, colorable exercise of power, abuse of post and power, violative of the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 2020, violative of provisions of Survey Settlement and Land Records, violative of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order as are deemed fit and proper.” 2. Heard Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 5, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy learned standing counsel for respondents 7 to 9, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent no.10. 3. Shorn of details, the substantive grievance of the petitioner is that even though the order of status quo was order granted by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.389 of 2020 in O.S.No.788 of 2020 on 17.10.2020, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, Uppal Revenue Mandal, violating the orders of trial Court and causing disturbance to the petitioner in enjoying the property and is also changing the physical features of the property in issue. 4. Petitioner filed four interlocutory applications in this writ petition. 4. Petitioner filed four interlocutory applications in this writ petition. By these applications, petitioner respectively seeks not to change the physical features; to direct the 1st respondent-State to take necessary action against 5th respondent for violating the law; to initiate contempt proceeding against the 5th respondent; and to direct the 10th respondent-Station House officer to register complaint against respondent nos.5, 6 and 9 for violating the status quo order. 5. In fact, each of the prayer sought in these four I.As., gives rise to independent cause of action to be worked out before appropriate authority/Court under various provisions of the law governing the respective subjects. 6. Be that as it may, though main prayer is exhaustive, the issue in the writ petition, put it simple and straight, is respondents are violating the status quo order granted by civil Court and they be restrained from adopting such course. In other words, this Court is called upon to enforce compliance of the status quo order granted by the trial Court. 7. The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a complete Code dealing with all aspects of civil litigation. Once an order is made by a civil Court it has to be complied. If petitioner alleges that civil Court order is violated he is not without remedy under CPC to compel him to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Writ remedy is an extraordinary remedy and equitable remedy. The Court extends its long arm of justice to reach out to persons, a citizen and even a non-citizen whose rights are affected by any illegality of State or its instrumentality and in a given case, by a private person. Though, jurisdiction of the writ Court has no bounds and can be extended far and wide but there are self imposed restraints in exercising such jurisdiction. Writ Court do not entertain writ petitions where parties to an issue have effective and efficacious remedies available. Whenever parties have effective and efficacious alternative remedies available, the Court relegates such parties to avail such remedies and decline to entertain writ petition and consider the issue. Writ Court do not entertain writ petitions where parties to an issue have effective and efficacious remedies available. Whenever parties have effective and efficacious alternative remedies available, the Court relegates such parties to avail such remedies and decline to entertain writ petition and consider the issue. Even when a writ is filed against inferior Tribunal/quasi-judicial authority or an administrative authority when proceedings are pending before them, ordinarily writ Court do not entertain writ petition unless it is pleaded and established that such authority/tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue, biased and/or there is violation of principle of natural justice and/or lacks fair play in action. Even within this limited parameters, judicial review under Article 226 is not available against civil Court. 9. Further, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not be resorted to enforce decree/order of a civil Court. CPC provides enough safeguards to petitioner and civil Court is competent to deal all aspects of lis pending before that Court. Therefore, he must go back to the Court where his case is pending and project before that Court what all is urged in this Court. Further, when competent Court is seized of the matter, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to deal with same issue in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Judicial discipline requires even for superior Court to restrain itself in usurping the jurisdiction of a civil Court and deal with a matter seized by a civil Court. It also amounts to running parallel proceedings, which should not be encouraged in the flow of justice delivery system. 10. Writ Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to petitioner to avail civil law remedy on the grievances ventilated in the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.