Telangana High Court

Gangarapuhanmanthu vs State Of Telangana on 6 October, 2023

Bench: C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                  WRIT PETITION No.8401 of 2019
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

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

"...to issue an order direction or any appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein in not providing Police aid for implementation of the temporary injunction orders dt.23.12.2013 in I.A.No.198 of 2013 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Armoor Dist, Nizamabad by considering representations of the petitioners dt.03.04.2019 submitted to the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein to provide police aid for the implementation of the injunction orders dt.23.12.2013 in I.A.No.198 of 2013 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Armoor Nizamabad, by considering the representation of the Petitioners dt.03.04.2019 and to pass such other order or orders.....".

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

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and

Late Gangarapu Ramulu (father of petitioner No.5) filed a suit for

perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.86 of 2013 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, against the Respondent Nos.4 to 32

herein in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.8.00gts in Sy.Nos.393 &

394, situated at Bheemgal Village & Mandal and the said Court was

pleased to grant temporary injunction vide order dated 23.12.2023

passed in I.A.No.198 of 2013 in O.S.No.86 of 2013. During the

pendency of the said suit, Gangarapu Ramulu (plaintiff No.3) died

and the Petitioner No.5 herein, was impleaded as legal heir of said

Gangarapu Ramulu. It is further case of the petitioners that

respondents Nos.7, 8 and 9 sold their land to respondent Nos.33 to

38 during pendency of the suit. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 have

alienated portion of the land admeasuring Ac.2.08 gts to Rade Boddu

Balram and others under registered sale deeds dated 22.01.2015

bearing document Nos.877/2016, 878/2016, 879/2016, 880/2016

and the petitioners are in possession of remaining portion of their

land. It is further case of petitioners that challenging the order dated

23.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.198 of 2013 in O.S.No.86 of 2013, the

unofficial respondents preferred CMA No.2 of 2014 before the District

Judge, Nizamabad and the said appeal was dismissed on

27.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, they filed Civil Revision Petition

No.4307 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court and the said C.R.P

was also dismissed on 10.11.2017.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

vehemently contended that even though temporary injunction

granted vide order dated 23.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.198 of 2013 in

O.S.No.86 of 2013 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Armoor, Nizamabad, and the same is in force, the unofficial

respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners,

which necessitated the petitioners to approach the police and submit

a representation dated 03.04.2019 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 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

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

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).

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).

MANU/TL/0359/2023

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 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.86 of 2013 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, seeking police protection. If such

application is filed, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor,

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.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.