Mogulla Raji Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3983 Tel

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.31644 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to

declare the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in

providing police protection to safeguard the possession of the

petitioners over the land admeasuring Ac.1.11 guntas in Sy.No.18

situated at Meerkhanpet Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated

28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.620 of 2006 on the file of the VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

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 petitioners that the mother of the

petitioners is the absolute owner and possessor of the agriculture

land admeasuring Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.17 and Ac.1.11

guntas in Sy.No.18 situated at Meerkhanpet Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the further case of the

petitioners that when respondent No.4 herein is interfering with

her peaceful possession over the subject property, the mother of

the petitioners filed O.S.No.620 of 2006 on the file of the VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

and the said suit was decreed vide Judgment and Decree, dated

31.08.2023.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

vehemently contended that even after passing of the judgment

and decree in O.S.No.620 of 2006, the unofficial respondent is

are interfering with the possession of the petitioners, which

necessiated the petitioners to approach the police seeking police

aid for implementation of the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.620 of 2006.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that

except approaching the police, the petitioners have not obtained

any orders either from the Court of the Principal Senior Civil

Judge which has passed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.620

of 2006 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 petitioners.

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 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

(2012) 4 SCC 307

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 the suit has

been decreed, the party has to seek execution of the decree by

(2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659

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 28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.620 of 2006 on the file of the

VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar,

without invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C.

The prayer of the petitioner is to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 petitioners have to

avail such remedy, if he feels that unofficial respondents are

obstructing them 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 petitioners,

this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the

petitioners seeking police aid for implementation of the judgment

and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.620 of 2006 on

the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at

L.B.Nagar. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an

appropriate application before the competent Civil Court, in

accordance with law. If such application is filed, the learned VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, 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 15.11.2023 gkv