Telangana High Court

Harsh Jain vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                WRIT PETITION No.30847 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare

the action of respondent No.5 in not registering the crime

against respondent Nos.6 to 12 basing on the representation,

dated 17.10.2023 submitted by the petitioners as illegal and

arbitrary.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute

owners and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.100.00 guntas in

various Sy.Nos.50 and 477 situated at Mucherla Village and

Gram Panchayat, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

having purchased the same through registered sale deeds

bearing document Nos.6791, 6792, 6795, 6793, dated

08.05.2006 and 7380 and 7381 of 2006, dated 18.05.2006. It

is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos.1 to 6

have executed a development agreement-cum-G.P.A. vide

document No.11686 of 2022, dated 13.04.2023 in favour of

M/s. SKA Realtors Private Limited and (2) M/s. VRD

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

Developers Private Limited, represented by their Director

Mr.Rakshit Agarwal and petitioner No.7 had executed an

agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. in favour of M/s. Lakshmi My

Zeal City, a Partnership firm represented by its Partner Sri

James Hazi Iqbal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit for perpetual

injunction against respondent Nos.6 to 12 vide O.S.No.211 of

2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the petitioners also filed

I.A.No.200 of 2023 seeking ad interim injunction. On

11.07.2023, the said Court adjourned the matter to 21.07.2023

for filing counters of respondent Nos.6 to 12 herein. Aggrieved

by the said order, the petitioners herein filed C.R.P.No.2187 of

2023 before this Court and this Court granted ad interim

injunction restraining respondent Nos.6 to 12 or their

henchmen or any persons from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the

suit schedule property in O.S.No.211 of 2023. It is the further

case of the petitioners that even after granting injunction order,

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

respondent Nos.6 to 12 are trying to encroach the subject land

and disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the

subject property and stating the said facts the petitioners have

lodged a complaint, dated 17.10.2023 before respondent No.5.

The grievance of the petitioners is that after receiving the

representation, dated 17.10.2023 submitted by them seeking

police protection and for registration of the case respondent

Nos.6 to 12, respondent No.5 is not taking any steps.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that

since there was no specific direction from the competent civil

Court, the respondents-police have not acted upon the

representation submitted by the petitioners.

6. In Kabbakula Padma vs. State of Telangana and

others 1, a Division Bench of this Court (wherein I was one of

the Member), observed as follows:

"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

2023(1) ALT 765 (DB) TS) = MANU/TL/2552/2022

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

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 an order of injunction."

7. Reiterating the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of

this Court in Mudraboina Odhelu and Ors. vs. The State of

Telanganana and others 2, observed as follows:

"12. This Court has time and again reiterated that the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for settling private disputes between two or more individual parties. Only when such dispute partakes the character of a public injury or infraction of statutory rights and duties, the remedy of writ jurisdiction may be invoked (see Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana (2023 (1) ALT 765 (DB) TS).

MANU/TL/0359/2023

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

13. In the instant case, what appellants had sought for before the learned Single Judge was execution of the injunction order. A writ proceeding cannot be converted into an execution proceeding. If the appellants feel that respondent No.6 is obstructing them from enjoying the fruits of the injunction order or if there is any disobedience to or breach of the injunction order, then the remedy of the appellants would be to invoke the provisions of Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

14. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of CPC reads as under:

2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.

(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, 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, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time 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 partyentitled thereto.

15. From the above, it is evident that if there is any disobedience to an order of injunction made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX CPC or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

granting injunction or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred may order the property of the person guilty of suchdisobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime, the Court directs his release. Therefore, Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC provides for an adequate and efficacious remedy to a person who is aggrieved by disobedience to or breach of an injunction order granted in his favour.

16. That being so, this court is of the view that petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police aid to enforce or implement an order of injunction or to restrain persons from interfering with the order of injunction should not be ordinarily entertained unless an element of injury to the public or infraction of statute is made out. Otherwise, it would amount to entering into an arena of private dispute(s)."

8. In view of the above settled legal position and since there

is alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners

under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C, this Court is not inclined

to grant any relief as sought for in this writ petition. However,

the petitioners are at liberty to file application under Order

XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC in

O.S.No.211 of 2023 on the file of the IV Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, seeking police

protection. If such application is filed, the learned IV Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, shall dispose

CVBR, J Wp_30847_2023

of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as