Telangana High Court
Singireddy Raji Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7345 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue a Writ, order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the F.I.R. pursuant to the complaint, dated 23.02.2024 by providing police protection in view of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.134 of 2023, dated 08.01.2024 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently issue a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take immediate action against unofficial respondents in order to save the life and property of the petitioner by registering the F.I.R..."
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas in Sy.No.413/4 and A.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.441/ee/2, situated at Tallapally Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. It is the case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.4 to 9 have interfered with his possession and caused inconvenience for his enjoyment of the subject property, he was constrained to institute a suit for bare injunction vide O.S.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla and 2 CVBR, J Wp_7345_2024 the said suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree, dated 08.01.2024. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after granting injunction by the competent civil Court, respondent Nos.4 to 9 are frequently interfering with his peaceful possession, causing inconvenience and criminally trespassing into the subject land as such he was constrained to lodge a complaint, dated 23.02.2024 and according to him the contents of the complaint reveals commission of cognizable offence. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even after receiving the said complaint, respondent No.3 has not taken any action under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that except approaching the police, the petitioner has not obtained any orders either from the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla, which has passed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.134 of 2023 or from this Court granting police protection. Since there was no specific direction 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 3 CVBR, J Wp_7345_2024 from the competent civil Court, the respondents-police have not acted upon the representation submitted by the petitioner.
4. In Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi 2, 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 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 2 (2012) 4 SCC 307 4 CVBR, J Wp_7345_2024 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 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."
5. In Raja Venkateswarlu and another vs. Mada Venkata Subbaiah and another 3, 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. 3 (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659 5 CVBR, J Wp_7345_2024
6. In the instant case the suit filed by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction was decreed. A party, who obtained perpetual injunction decree, and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, but also an application seeking Police protection under Section 151 CPC from the competent Civil Court. 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.
7. 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 08.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla. 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 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajanna Siricilla, shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, 6 CVBR, J Wp_7345_2024 within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing of such application.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 21.03.2024 gkv