Telangana High Court
Dharmajipet Pratap Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 8 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.21674 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"......to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein in not providing police aid for implementation of the perpetual injunction decree and judgment passed in favor of the petitioner in OS No.19 of 2008 dated 23/07/2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet restraining the respondent no.4 or any person on his behalf from in any way interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of his land in survey no.318/uu an extent of Ac.0-17 guntas situated at Metpalli Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District which was confirmed in AS No.54 of 2013, dated 19/03/2018 passed by the VI Additional District Judge At Siddipet, Medak District despite submitting representations, dated 13/05/2023 and 05/12/2022 as illegal, unjustified and consequently direct to the respondents nos.2 and 3 to provide police protection/aid for implementation of perpetual injunction decree and judgment in favor of petitioner in OS No.19 of 2008, dated 23/07/2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet by acting upon the representations, dated 13/05/2023 and 05/12/2022 as per law in the interest of justice ......"
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and
possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.17 guntas in Sy.No.318/uu 2
situated at Metpalli Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet
District. It is the further case of the petitioner that when
respondent No.4 made attempts to interfere with his peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the subject land, he was
constrained to institute a suit vide O.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet and the said suit
was decreed vide Judgment and Decree, dated 23.07.2013.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
vehemently contended that even after passing of the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.19 of 2008, respondent No.4 is 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.19
of 2008.
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 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.19 of 2008 or
from this Court granting police protection. Since there was no
specific direction from the competent civil Court, the 3
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 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
1 (2012) 4 SCC 307 4
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
filing an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which
2 (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 659 5
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 23.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2008 by the learned
Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, without invoking the provisions of
Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. In the affidavit filed accompanying 6
the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that respondent No.4
is interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The prayer
of the petitioner is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 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 7
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 23.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2008 by
the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet. 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 Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Siddipet, 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. 8
12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed
_________________________________ JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Date: 08.01.2024 SUS
