Dasaraju Padrna vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3764 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

              WRIT PETITION No.32399 of 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

declare the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in

not taking action on the complaints, dated 30.09.2014 and

18.10.2014 against respondent Nos.6 to 9 and also not

giving protection to the petitioner to cultivate her land

admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.909/Aa and Ac.0.25

guntas in Sy.No.909/Aa-1 situated at Miryalaguda Village

and Mandal, Nalgonda District in pursuance of the

judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed in

O.S.No.259 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Miryalaguda, as illegal and arbitrary and for other reliefs.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused

the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she, along with her

children, are owners and possessors of land admeasuring

Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.909/Aa and Ac.0.25 guntas in

Sy.No.909/Aa-1 situated at Miryalaguda Village and

Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is the further case of the

petitioner that originally her husband was the owner of the

said land and after his demise they became owners and

possessors of the said land. It is the further case of the

petitioner that when respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are having

land abutting to their lands, made attempts to interfere

with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the

subject lands, she was constrained to institute a suit vide

O.S.No.259 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Miryalaguda and the said suit was decreed vide Judgment

and Decree, dated 31.01.2014.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

vehemently contended that even after passing of the

judgment and decree in O.S.No.259 of 2010, the unofficial

respondents are interfering with the possession of the

petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to approach

the police seeking police aid for implementation of the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.259 of 2010.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 has

submitted that except approaching the police, the

petitioner has not obtained any orders either from the

Court of the Junior Civil Judge which has passed the

judgment and decree in O.S.No.259 of 2010 or from this

Court granting police protection. Since there was no

specific direction from the competent civil Court, the

respondents-police have not acted upon the representation

submitted by the petitioner.

6. In Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi 1,

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC lies only where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit.

However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order

(2012) 4 SCC 307

to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically.

18. In case there is a grievance of non-

compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. Application under Order 39 Rule 2- A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the court has to exercise its discretion under the 1971 Act when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies

may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. There is a complete fallacy in the argument that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would also include the case of violation or breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of the decree."

7. In Raja Venkateswarlu and another vs. Mada

Venkata Subbaiah and another 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

while dealing with the similar issue, upheld the orders

passed by the Executing Court granting police protection

under Section 151 of C.P.C for implementation of

injunction decree stating that it is not necessary that the

person seeking police protection must file an application

only under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC.

8. When any temporary injunction granted under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC during the pendency of the

suit, the remedy available to the injunction holder is to

invoke the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Once

(2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659

the suit has been decreed, the party has to seek execution

of the decree by filing an application under Order XXI Rule

32 of CPC, which applies to prohibitory as well as

mandatory injunctions. In other words, it applies to cases

where the party is directed to do some act and also to the

cases where he is abstained from doing an act. Execution

of an injunction decree is to be made in pursuance of

Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, as the CPC provides a particular

manner and mode of execution and therefore, no other

mode is permissible in law. If the Execution Court while

entertaining an application filed by the party, refused to

grant any relief sought therein either for implementation of

the decree or for providing necessary police aid, at that

stage, the party may approach the High Court and seek

police protection for implementation of the orders granted

by the Civil Court. Under the guise of seeking a writ of

mandamus, no person can make the Court a forum for

adjudicating the civil rights. While exercising the

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the High Court would not, collaterally, determine disputed

questions of fact.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition seeking to implement the judgment

and decree, dated 31.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.259 of

2010 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda,

without invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 of

C.P.C. It is further stated that the unofficial respondents

are interfering with the land of the petitioner. The prayer of

the petitioner is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to provide

police protection. While police officers are no doubt

obligated to assist in implementation of orders of Court,

any bonafide dispute regarding the scope and purport of

the order, would require them to exercise restraint and

leave it to the party, which seeks police assistance, to

approach the Court and obtain necessary directions/orders

in this regard.

10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is having remedy to

invoke Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC read with Sections 94

and 151 of CPC. If the competent Civil Court fails to grant

police aid, then the writ petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India would remain effective in

appropriate situations. The relief of police protection may

be granted in a situation where an application is filed by

the person obtaining injunction alleging that there is a

threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of

injunction, subject to proof. When a petition is filed seeking

police protection, such order cannot be passed in a routine

manner and a high degree of proof is necessary. A party,

who obtained temporary injunction order or perpetual

injunction decree, and is complaining of violation of such

orders, may file not only an application under Order XXXIX

Rule 2A CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the

violator for Contempt of Court or an execution petition

under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, as the case may be, but

also an application seeking Police protection under Section

151 CPC from the competent Civil Court. In the present

case, since there is a specific remedy available under Order

XXI Rule 32 of CPC, the petitioner has to avail such

remedy, if he feels that unofficial respondents are

obstructing him from enjoying the fruits of the decree or if

there is any disobedience or breach of the judgment and

decree.

11. In view of the above remedy available to the

petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief

sought by the petitioner seeking police aid for

implementation of the judgment and decree dated

31.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2010 by the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. However, the petitioner is

at liberty to file an appropriate application before the

competent Civil Court, in accordance with law. . If such

application is filed, the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Miryalaguda, shall dispose of the same, in accordance with

law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a

period of two (2) months from the date of filing of such

application.

12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

disposed of. No costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed

_________________________________ JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY 09.11.2023 gkv