HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.15398 AND 17918 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER (ORAL):
As the subject matter is similar and respondent Nos.6 to 8
are same in both the writ petitions, they are taken up for disposal together.
2. These writ petitions are filed aggrieved by inaction of respondent No.5 - the Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad, in providing police protection to the respective petitioners against respondent Nos.6 to 8 pursuant to their complaint dated 10.02.2020 based on the judgment and decree in O.S. Nos.195 and 196 of 2003 both dated 03.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
3. It is not in dispute that in the above suits, decree for perpetual injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs i.e., the petitioners herein against the defendants viz., Jangala Gandaiah and his four sons - unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, 2 declaring the petitioners viz., P.Raghotham Reddy and B. Seetharam as owners of subject Plot Nos.17 and 18 respectively and restrained unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners on those plots.
4. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.15398 of 2020, Mr. D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 in both the writ petitions, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and perused the material on record.
5. Mr. T.V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17918 of 2020 is not present.
6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 has submitted that Execution Petition Nos.51 of 2017 filed by the petitioner in the latter writ petition before the trial Court for execution of decree passed in O.S. No.196 of 2003 is pending along with the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) for providing police protection. While E.P. No.51 of 2017 filed by the petitioner along with the application 3 under Section 151 of CPC is pending, invoking jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted to agitate the same grievance. It is further submitted that in W.P. No.15398 of 2020, the petitioner ought to have availed effective alternate remedy under the competent civil Court by filing execution petition or application under Section 151 of CPC for police protection. Instead, the petitioner has directly approached this Court.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner in W.P. No.17918 of 2020 cannot be permitted to pursue the writ petition since he has already availed alternate remedy by filing E.P. No.51 of 2017 and application for grant of police aid. In W.P. No.15398 of 2020, it is not known whether execution petition is filed to implement the decree in O.S. No.195 of 2003. The petitioner, in any case, has not pleaded any exceptional circumstances to approach this Court directly for grant of police aid without resorting to alternate remedy under the CPC.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, in W.P. No.17918 of 2020, the trial Court is directed to pass orders in E.P. No.51 of 4 2017 or any application filed under Section 151 of CPC for grant of police aid for implementing the decree dated 03.06.2006 in O.S. Nos.196 of 2003 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner in W.P. No.15398 of 2020 is at liberty to file execution petition or application under Section 151 of CPC for implementing the decree dated 03.06.2006 in O.S. No.195 of 2003. It is needless to mention that respondent Nos.6 to 8 - judgments debtors shall be given opportunity to file counter and contest the Execution Petitions and applications, if any, in both the writ petitions.
9. With the above directions and observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 15, 2022.
PV