Telangana High Court
Deben Mandal, vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 22 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28598 of 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in providing police protection in respect of the property admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.23/432, Nazrulnagar, Kagajnagar Mandal, Adilabad District, for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, as illegal and arbitrary and for other reliefs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.23/432, Nazrulnagar, Kagajnagar Mandal, Adilabad District, having acquired the same through lavoni patta. Ever since the date of granting patta, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, when one Upanand Sarkar and Sachin Sarkar tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 2 enjoyment of the said land, he was constrained to institute O.S.No.65 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014 and the said judgment became final. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the defendants in the said suit were interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land, he gave representation to respondent No.2 to take necessary action to restrain the defendants in the said suit from interfering with his possession of the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representation, respondent No.2 has not taken any action and hence, he approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even after passing of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.65 of 2011, the defendants in the said suit were interfering with the possession of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to approach the police seeking police aid for implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65 of 2011.
CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 3
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents has submitted that except approaching the police, the petitioner has not obtained any orders either from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur which has passed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.65 of 2011 or from this Court granting police protection. Since there was no specific direction from the competent civil Court, the respondents-police have not acted upon the representation submitted by the petitioner.
6. In Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC lies only where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and 1 (2012) 4 SCC 307 CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 4 if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically.
18. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. Application under Order 39 Rule 2- A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the court has to exercise its discretion under the 1971 Act when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 5 in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would also include the case of violation or breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of the decree."
7. In Raja Venkateswarlu and another vs. Mada Venkata Subbaiah and another2, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue, upheld the orders passed by the Executing Court granting police protection under Section 151 of C.P.C for implementation of injunction decree stating that it is not necessary that the person seeking police protection must file an application only under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC.
8. When any temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC during the pendency of the suit, the remedy available to the injunction holder is to invoke the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Once the suit has been decreed, the party has to seek execution of the decree by filing an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which 2 (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659 CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 6 applies to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. In other words, it applies to cases where the party is directed to do some act and also to the cases where he is abstained from doing an act. Execution of an injunction decree is to be made in pursuance of Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, as the CPC provides a particular manner and mode of execution and therefore, no other mode is permissible in law. If the Execution Court while entertaining an application filed by the party, refused to grant any relief sought therein either for implementation of the decree or for providing necessary police aid, at that stage, the party may approach the High Court and seek police protection for implementation of the orders granted by the Civil Court. Under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus, no person can make the Court a forum for adjudicating the civil rights. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would not, collaterally, determine disputed questions of fact.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to direct respondent No.2 to provide police protection for implementation of the judgment and decree, dated CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 7 26.11.2014 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2011 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, without invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. While police officers are no doubt obligated to assist in implementation of orders of Court, any bona fide dispute regarding the scope and purport of the order, would require them to exercise restraint and leave it to the party, which seeks police assistance, to approach the Court and obtain necessary directions/orders in this regard.
10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is having remedy to invoke Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC read with Sections 94 and 151 of CPC. If the competent Civil Court fails to grant police aid, then the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would remain effective in appropriate situations. The relief of police protection may be granted in a situation where an application is filed by the person obtaining injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of injunction, subject to proof. When a petition is filed seeking police protection, such order cannot be passed in a routine manner and a high degree of proof is necessary. A party, who obtained temporary injunction CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 8 order or perpetual injunction decree, and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for Contempt of Court or an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, as the case may be, but also an application seeking Police protection under Section 151 CPC from the competent Civil Court. In the present case, since there is a specific remedy available under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, the petitioner has to avail such remedy, if he feels that unofficial respondents are obstructing him from enjoying the fruits of the decree or if there is any disobedience or breach of the judgment and decree.
11. In view of the above remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner seeking police aid for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2014 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2011 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law. If such application is filed, the learned Junior CVBR, J WP.No.28598 of 2015 9 Civil Judge, Sirpur, shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of filing of such application.
12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed _________________________________ JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY 22.01.2024 dr