Telangana High Court
Smt Kamaljit Kaur And Another vs The Principal Secretary Home And 4 ... on 31 March, 2022
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16424 of 2022
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the action of the
3rd respondent in not taking any action on their representation dated 07.03.2021
to direct respondents 4 and 5 to provide police protection in opening their shop,
namely M/s. Shakti International, having business at premises bearing No.4-8-
801/1 to 805, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and with their consent, the Writ Petition is
taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Admittedly, there are inter se civil disputes between the petitioners and
the third parties in relation to the subject property and when there was
interference by such third parties, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.983 of 2021
before the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants therein. Along with the said suit, petitioners
have also filed I.A.No.102 of 2021 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking
temporary injunction. It is also not disputed that the Court below, vide order
dated 10.03.2021, while ordering notice, had granted ad interim temporary
injunction restraining the respondents-defendants therein in interfering with the
1st petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the schedule
property.
4. In spite of the trial Court grating ad interim injunction in favour of the
petitioners herein, if the defendants, or any person claiming through them,
breach such interim injunction and seek to interfere with the possession of the
petitioners, the petitioners should approach the concerned trial Court seeking
police aid by filing necessary application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Further, it
is also to be seen that the ad interim injunction order has been passed as an
interim measure, while directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to comply with Order 39
Rule 3 CPC.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that granting of police aid,
in furtherance of representation made by the petitioners, would, in effect,
amount to the interlocutory application being allowed granting injunction without
hearing the defendants in the suit.
5. Further, following the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, vide
common judgment in W.A.Nos.38 and 43 of 2022, dated 28.01.2022, this Court
is of the view that the present writ petition filed seeking a direction to the 3rd
respondent to take action on respondents 4 and 5 for not providing police aid,
cannot be accepted. On the other hand, if the petitioners feel that there is
breach of interim injunction granted by the trial Court, the proper course would
be to approach the said Court, which is seized of the matter in O.S.No.983 of
2021, but not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, without exhausting the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A
CPC.
6. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is
accordingly dismissed.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:31.03.2022
GJ
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16424 of 2022
31.03.2022
GJ
