High Court · 2025

titution of lndia praying that in the herewith, the High Court may be r direction, more particularly one in ction of the 3rd Respondent in not nt to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.158/2015 passed by the Junior Civil udge - cum - Judibial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, as arbitrary, illegal and of the Constitution of lndia and consequent protection to the Petitioner pursuant to the J 2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge - cum Jagtial, in the interest of justice iolative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A direct the Respondent to provide dgment and Decree in O.S.No.158 - Judicial Magistrate of First Class. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to provide protection to the Petitioner pursuant to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.158/2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Otherwise the Petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: SRI MANCHIKANTLA VISHNUVARDHAN The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HON,BLE SRT JUSTI T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petiti No. f2 25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the llowing prayer: ".. to issue an appropriate writ, order or irection, more particularly one ifl the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring not providing protection to the Petition Decree in O.S.No.158/2015 passed by Magistrate of First Class, lagtial, as arbi 14, 27 and 300 A of the Constitution of action of the 3d Respondent in r pursuant to the ludgment and lunior Civil ludge-cum-ludicial ry, illegal and violative of Articles ndia and consequently direct the Respondent to provide protection to the by the lunior Civil ludgetum- and Decree in O.S.No.158 2015 Pa the interest of justic€ and Pass ludicial Magistrate of Ftrst Class, .]agtial, such other order or orders as this Hon'bl Cou( may deem fit and proper in ioner pursuant to the ludgment the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Pleader for Home appearing for Sri Manchikantla Vishnuvardhan, I arned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and perused record.

3. Petitioner contends that though he had obtained a judgment and decree dt.19.09.2024 in her favour in .S.No.15B of 2015 on the flte of the Junior Civil Judge - cum- ludicial M istrate of First Clags, Jagtial, the iding police protection to the respondents-authorities are not p petitioner pursuant to the aforesa judgrnent and decree for its execution, which action of the respond nts-authorities it is cortended as illegal, arbitrary and violative of A cles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, with a consequen al direction to the respondents to provide police protection.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner by approaching the competent Coutt of Civil jurisdiction had obtained a judgment and decree in respect of suit schedule property, which ls an immovable property; that since, the petitioner, having availed civil remedies in respect of the suit schedule property, is required to take further steps for executing the aforesaid judgment and decree obtained by her and for the said reason cannot approach the respondents-authorities and seek for providing police aid for implementation of the judgment and decree, as if any such action is taken by the respondents-authorities, the same would be contrary to the police duties in terms of the Police Act, which they are required to discharge.

5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner without availing the remedy of execution of the judgment and decree under Order XXI of CPC and also obtaining an order of provid-ing police protection by way of execution application therein, had approached the respondents-authorities seeking for police aid for implementing the judgment and decree and also this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, claiming inaction of the respondents-authorities in providing police aid for enforcing the judgment and decree. Learned Government Pleader submits that the execution of judgment and decree cannot be sought through the police authorities and for the said reason, the respondents-a uthorities did not give police aid. f-* 3 Learned counsel appearing on be

6. on the other hand, would submit that further remedies provided under CPC lf of resPondent Nos.4 and 5, petitioner instead of availing is seeking to implement the aforesaid order by using police force whic is not Permitted in law. 7 I have taken note of the resPective ntentions urged.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted th Writ Petition has called in question t authorities in providing police protecti judgment and decree dt.19.09.2024 i showing to this Court of the petitioner t the petitioner bY the Present inaction of the respondents- n for imPlementation of the O.S.No.15B of 2015 without aving taken steps for enforcing the aforesaid decree obtained by her in proceedings and also an application the civil suit, bY filing execution erein seeking Police aid for implementation of the said judgment and decree.

9. Further, this Court in W'P'No'821 judgment in S.Masthan Saheb and of 2025 bY following the earlier ers v/s. P.S.R. AnianeYulu and othetC had held that the Power regard to ensuring maintenance of la of police authorities is only with and order and the authorities cannot involve themselves in civil dispu

10. Since, the Petitioner bY aPProa seeking to enforce the judgment and d ing the respondents-authorities is cree of the Civil Court, this Court I 2OO2(2) AnWR 532 , t 4 is of the view that the said approach of the petitioner in approaching the respondents-authorities for implementation/enforcement of the judgment and decree itself per se is contrary to law without availing further remedies provided under CPC, much less for her to approach this Court by the present Writ Petition.

11. Since, the petitioner herein had obtained a judgment and decree in O.S.No.15B of 2015 only on L9.09.2024, and if the petitioner feels of any interference of her property by the unofficial respondent contrary to the judgment and decree, in the gforesaid suit, has to initiate action firsuy by filing execution petition and secondly, execution application therein, and for the said reason, cannot approach the respondents-a uthorities and seek to invoke the police power.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petitfon shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at

3. One CC to SRl. MANCHIKANTLA VISHNUVARDHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BM PVL (t HIGH COURT DATED:1310612025 I 'lits . 6R e c o 1 1 I .a); ORDER WP.No.8698 of 2025 -. .. ,-..\ ItI6 m6 r I .,. / .f -. 't-7u.r-, * -.;/ -:--;Z DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f $- \+ 1- l,r