B. Saheb Bee vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1955 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                     W.P.No.6317 of 2022


ORDER:

Though notice was served on respondent Nos.4 and 5 none

appears for them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the suit

OS.No.121 of 2009 was decreed on 29.03.2010 granting

permanent injunction in his favour pursuant to the compromise

recorded in lok-adalath. Learned counsel also points out that

the trial Judge, while disposing the suit clearly stated that the

interim injunction granted is made absolute. The grievance of

the petitioner is that despite the representation given after the

order passed by the Court, respondent-Police are not acting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a number of

representations which are filed along with the writ petition. The

instructions given to the learned Government Pleader show that

the petitioner has approached the police authorities. However, it

is admitted that an FIR was already registered, pursuant to the

orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram a

crime was registered and the investigation is in progress.

Apart from this, the main issue is about the police aid for

the enjoyment of the property pursuant to the decree passed by

the Court. The law on the subject is well settled and need not

be repeated here.

In view of the fact that there is a decree passed in favour of

the plaintiff and the interim injunction is also made absolute,

the 3rd respondent is directed to provide police protection to the

petitioner for the enjoyment of the property covered by the suit

O.S.No.121 of 2009 whenever the petitioner makes a fresh

representation about any infringement of the judgment by the

respondents.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. No order as to

costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 21.04 .2022 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow.

KLP