Mutyala Ravi Muthyala Ravinder vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 630 Tel

Item No.7


      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                          W.A.No.196 of 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The present appeal is directed against an order dated 06.02.2020

passed in W.P.No.29090 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.5/writ

petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4/local police in not

providing police aid to her against the appellant/respondent No.5 and

her property, during the subsistence of an injunction order dated

24.03.2015 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in

I.A.No.44 of 2015 in O.S.No.15 of 2015 filed by her, as illegal and

arbitrary.

2. By the impugned order, the respondent No.4 has been directed

to extend police aid to the respondent No.5/writ petitioner to

implement the ad interim injunction order dated 24.03.2015, till such

time the said order is either vacated/modified/set aside by the learned

Civil Judge or the Appellate Court or till I.A.No.333 of 2015 filed

therein subsequently by the respondent No.5/writ petitioner for

seeking police aid is disposed of.

3. The main grievance of the appellant/respondent No.5 is that the

captioned writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge at

the stage of admission itself without issuing notice to the

appellant/respondent No.5 and without affording an opportunity to

him to put forth his case, thus violating the principles of natural

justice.

4. Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/respondent No.5 states that there was no occasion for the

respondent No.5/writ petitioner to have filed a petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for seeking enforcement of an

ex parte interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge when an

appropriate remedy is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for

seeking enforcement of the injunction order.

5. Mr. K. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent

No.5/writ petitioner does not dispute the fact that no notice was issued

to the appellant/respondent No.5 in the captioned petition before the

impugned order came to be passed and that the said order was passed

at the stage of admission itself.

6. We have enquired from learned counsel for the respondent

No.5/writ petitioner as to whether his client had invoked the

provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, calling upon the learned

Civil Judge to proceed against the appellant/respondent No.5, on the

ground that he had violated the ex parte interim order dated

24.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 moved in O.S.No.15 of 2015

pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge. Learned counsel

explains that the respondent No.5/writ petitioner did file I.A.No.333

of 2015 for seeking appropriate police aid, which is pending.

Simultaneously, I.A.No.335 of 2015 was filed under Order XXXIX

Rule 2A CPC against the appellant/respondent No.5 and some others

stating inter alia that they had violated the interim order.

7. Admittedly, notice was issued by the learned Civil Judge on the

captioned applications. Despite that, the respondent No.5/writ

petitioner proceeded to file the aforesaid misconceived writ petition

seeking to invoke the extraordinary powers of judicial review vested

in a constitutional Court for enforcement of an order passed by the

learned Civil Judge on a stay application moved by her in a civil suit,

which is most unacceptable and an unheard of procedure.

8. There was no occasion for the respondent No.5/writ petitioner

to have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India only for seeking enforcement of an order passed

by the learned Civil Judge in a civil suit. Such a practice is

deprecated. If the respondent No.5/writ petitioner did have a

grievance that the learned Civil Judge had not passed appropriate

orders on the applications moved by her, it was for her to approach the

Appellate Court with a grievance.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is

accordingly quashed and set aside as unsustainable. It is for the

respondent No.5/writ petitioner to seek appropriate legal recourse, as

contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, if aggrieved by the

failure of the learned Civil Judge in passing any orders in the

interlocutory application.

10. The present appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of

along with the pending applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

01.03.2021 JSU/pln