THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16424 of 2022
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action on their representation dated 07.03.2021 to direct respondents 4 and 5 to provide police protection in opening their shop, namely M/s. Shakti International, having business at premises bearing No.4-8- 801/1 to 805, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Admittedly, there are inter se civil disputes between the petitioners and the third parties in relation to the subject property and when there was interference by such third parties, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.983 of 2021 before the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein. Along with the said suit, petitioners have also filed I.A.No.102 of 2021 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. It is also not disputed that the Court below, vide order dated 10.03.2021, while ordering notice, had granted ad interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants therein in interfering with the 1st petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the schedule property.
2
4. In spite of the trial Court grating ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners herein, if the defendants, or any person claiming through them, breach such interim injunction and seek to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners should approach the concerned trial Court seeking police aid by filing necessary application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Further, it is also to be seen that the ad interim injunction order has been passed as an interim measure, while directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to comply with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that granting of police aid, in furtherance of representation made by the petitioners, would, in effect, amount to the interlocutory application being allowed granting injunction without hearing the defendants in the suit.
5. Further, following the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, vide common judgment in W.A.Nos.38 and 43 of 2022, dated 28.01.2022, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to take action on respondents 4 and 5 for not providing police aid, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, if the petitioners feel that there is breach of interim injunction granted by the trial Court, the proper course would be to approach the said Court, which is seized of the matter in O.S.No.983 of 2021, but not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.
3
6. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:31.03.2022 GJ 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.16424 of 2022 31.03.2022 GJ 5