Telangana High Court
Waliunnisa Begum vs State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3439 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to
declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not providing
police protection to the life and property of the petitioners
to secure the compliance of the final decree proceedings,
dated 09.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2021 in O.S.No.35
of 1976 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar,
Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural
justice 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 they are the
lawful owners and possessor of their shares of land falls
under different survey number, situated at Kondurg Village
and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the
same by virtue of final decree proceedings, dated
09.06.2023 in I.A.No.99 of 2021 in O.S.No.35 of 1976 on
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy
district.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
vehemently contended that even after passing of the final
decree in O.S.No.35 of 1976, the unofficial respondents are
interfering with the possession of the petitioners, which
necessitated the petitioners to approach the police seeking
police aid for implementation of the final decree passed in
O.S.No.35 of 1976.
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
petitioners have not obtained any orders either from the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge which has passed the final
decree in O.S.No.35 of 1976 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.
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
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
(2012) 4 SCC 307
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
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.
(2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
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 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
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
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 petitioners have filed the
present writ petition seeking to implement the final decree
dated 09.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2021 in O.S.No.35
of 1976 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar,
Ranga Reddy District, without invoking the provisions of
Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. The prayer of the petitioners 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.
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
10. Be that as it may, the petitioners are 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 the 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
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
case, since there is a specific remedy available under Order
XXI Rule 32 of CPC, the petitioners have to avail such
remedy, if they feel that unofficial respondents are
obstructing them from enjoying the fruits of the final
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 final decree, dated 09.06.2023 in
I.A.No.99 of 2021 in O.S.No.35 of 1976 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.
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 Senior
Civil Judge, Shadnagar, 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.
CVBR, J
wp_3439_2024
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
09.02.2024
gkv
