Telangana High Court

Kurva Veeranna vs The State Of Telangana on 5 October, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.27615 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not granting police ad for implementation of the temporary injunction orders, dated 19.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.147 of 2018 in O.S.No.88 of 2018 on the file of the Princpal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, illegal and void..."

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

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the

owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in

Sy.No.64/Ea3/2 and Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.64/AA2/2,

petitioner No.2 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring

Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.64/Ea3/1 and Ac.0.35 guntas in

Sy.No.64/Aa2/1 and petitioner No.3 is the owner and possessor

of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.64/Ea3/1 and

Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.64/Aa2/3 situated at Maddelabanda

Village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is the

further case of the petitioners that when respondent Nos.4 to 6

are illegally interfering with their possession and enjoyment

they have constrained to institute a suit for perpetual

injunction vide O.S.No.88 of 2018 on the file of the Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal and the said Court also granted

injunction in I.A.No.147 of 2018, dated 19.02.2020. It is the

further case of the petitioners even after granting injunctions,

respondent Nos.4 to 6 have violated the injunction orders by

illegally interfering their possession, they have lodged

complaints dated 19.05.2020, 28.07.2020 and 09.08.2021

before respondent No.3 but no action was taken. On the other

hand, respondent No.3 had registered several cases i.e., Crime

Nos.180 of 2020, 140 of 2021 and 157 of 2021 against the

petitioners on the false complaints lodged by respondent Nos.4

to 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have also

filed I.A.No.582 of 2021 before the Principal Civil Judge,

Gadwal, the same was not being taken up as the post of

Presiding Officer is kept vacant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

vehemently contended that even though the injunction granted

vide order dated 19.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.147 of 2018 in

O.S.No.88 of 2018 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Gadwal and the same is in force, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are

interfering with the possession of the petitioners, which

necessitated the petitioners to approach the police and submit

a representation, dated 09.08.2021 seeking police aid for

implementation of the orders passed by the Court.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 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

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

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 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

MANU/TL/0359/2023

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).

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 party entitled 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 granting injunction 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 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.88 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Gadwal, seeking police protection. If such application is filed,

the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, 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.