Telangana High Court
Kabbakula Padma vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
+ WRIT APPEAL No.660 of 2022
% Date: 17.10.2022
# Kabbakula Padma
... Appellant
v.
$ State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the appellant : Mr. V.V.Rahavan
^ Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy,
Government Pleader for Home
< GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.660 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
disposing of W.P.No.29061 of 2022.
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed the related
writ petition seeking a direction to respondents No.2 and 3
to provide police protection to enforce her right against
respondent No.4 for cultivation in land admeasuring
Ac.0.09 guntas in Survey No.111/A, Ac.0.08 guntas in
Survey No.111/A/1, Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.142 and
Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.142/A situated at Nadiwada
Village, Mahabubabad Mandal and District .
4. According to the appellant, she has filed O.S.No.267
of 2021 against respondent No.4 for permanent injunction
in respect of the above land. She has also filed I.A.No.2 of
2021 in the aforesaid civil suit for ad interim injunction.
By the order dated 26.11.2021, the civil Court granted ad
interim injunction in favour of the appellant by restraining
respondent No.4 from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the above land by the
appellant. Contending that respondent No.4 was
obstructing the appellant from enjoying her property,
appellant approached respondents No.2 and 3 seeking
police protection. As police protection was not provided,
appellant filed the related writ petition.
5. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition
observing that no such relief as sought for by the appellant
could be passed based on an ad interim injunction in
favour of the appellant. The writ petition was disposed of
with liberty to the appellant to avail the other remedies.
6. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge. Availing the assistance of the police or seeking
police protection for enforcement of injunction order
without approaching the civil Court granting the injunction
order is not provided under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC). In fact, such shortcut method is not to be
encouraged bypassing the procedure under CPC. Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC deals with consequence of
disobedience or breach of injunction. Sub-rule (1) thereof
says that in case of disobedience of any injunction granted
under Rules 1 and 2 or breach of any of the terms of
injunction, the Court granting injunction may order the
property of the person guilty of such disobedience or
breach to be attached and may also order such person to
be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months. Sub-rule (2) clarifies that such attachment
shall not remain in force for more than one year. However,
if the disobedience or breach continues, the property
attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court
may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the
injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party
entitled thereto. Thus, CPC provides for adequate remedy
to a person who is aggrieved by disobedience or breach of
an order of injunction.
7. Therefore, seeking police protection or police aid to
enforce an order of injunction is not contemplated under
the law.
8. That being the position, we are of the view that such
writ petitions seeking direction to provide police protection
in furtherance of injunction order should not be ordinarily
entertained.
9. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
17.10.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
vs
