Telangana High Court
Smt Katta Sathemma vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 5 December, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.5418 OF 2022 and 21388 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER: (ORAL)
The issue involved in both these writ petitions is interlinked;
therefore, both these writ petitions are being heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.21388 of 2019 is filed aggrieved by the action of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not providing police aid for
implementation of the decree dated 04.10.2017 in O.S.No.220 of
2013 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda,
despite granting police aid in E.A.No.62 of 2018 in E.P.No.40 of
2018 in the said O.S.No.220 of 2013.
3. W.P.No.5418 of 2022 is filed aggrieved by the action of
respondent No.2 in not providing police aid for implementation of
the decree dated 21.11.2017 in O.S.No.248 of 2013 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, despite granting police
aid vide order dated 19.11.2018 in E.A. of 2018 in E.P.No.37 of
2018 in the said O.S.No.248 of 2013.
BVR,J
WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.5418 of 2022 is respondent No.5
in W.P.No.21388 of 2019, and the petitioners in W.P.No.21388 of
2019 are respondent Nos.3 and 8 in W.P.5418 of 2022.
6. The petitioner in W.P.No.5418 of 2022 claims to be an
absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring
Ac.1.35 guntas in Survey No.630/6 situated at Thungapahad
Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, and in respect of
the said property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2013 on the file
of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, seeking perpetual
injunction; whereas the petitioners in W.P.No.21388 of 2019 claim
to be absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring
Ac.3.00 guntas in Survey No.630 situated at Thungapahad Village,
Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, and they filed a suit in
O.S.No.220 of 2013 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Miryalguda, seeking the same relief of perpetual injunction.
7. As could be seen from the record, in both the suits i.e.,
O.S.No.220 of 2013 and O.S.No.248 of 2013, judgments were
BVR,J
WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019
passed on 04.10.2017 and 21.11.2017 respectively, decreeing suits
in favour of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, in the Execution
Applications in Execution Petitions filed in both the suits, police
aid was granted in favour of the decree holders/petitioners herein.
8. It is interesting to note that the petitioners who sought for
police aid in pursuance of injunction decree passed in their favour
in O.S.No.220 of 2013 opposed for granting police aid to their
opposite party in pursuance of injunction decree passed in
O.S.No.248 of 2013.
9. As seen from above one decree was passed in respect of
Survey No.630 and another decree was passed in respect of Survey
No.630/6 situated in Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal,
Nalgonda District, respectively. It appears there is a boundary
dispute between the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the trial
Court ought to have been careful while granting police aid in
Execution Petitions filed by the petitioners in these writ petitions,
which are in conflict with each other. If police aid is granted in
one case and rejected in another case, the situation would have
been different. In case there is boundary dispute between both the
parties, it is not understandable how the police would implement
BVR,J
WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019
both the decrees in respect of Survey No.630 & 630/6, without
there being clear demarcation of the subject properties. If common
judgment had been passed by clubbing both the suits, there would
not have been any confusion. Both the suits were filed in the year
2013. Neither the parties have taken any steps nor the trial Court
has taken a suo moto decision to club both the suits. Thus, in the
considered opinion of this Court, when two separate decrees are
passed in two suits, it will not be possible for the police to provide
police aid for implementation of such decrees and it would lead to
further confusion.
10. In the above circumstances, both these writ petitions are
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file an application
under order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or under Order XXI Rule 32
CPC. It is made clear that police aid shall not be extended to any
of the parties until final orders are passed in main Execution
Petitions i.e., E.P.No.248 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2013; and
E.P.No.40 of 2018 in O.S.No.220 of 2013. The trial Court
/Executing court shall club both the EPs and conduct common
enquiry before passing final orders. No order as to costs.
BVR,J
WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
December 05, 2022
NSP
