The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent police in not providing police protection to the petitioner property to an extent of Ac.7-30 gts in Sy No. 127 lo 131(part)at Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District basing on the Docket Order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar pursuant to the complaint dated 22.05.2017 of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of naturat justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to provide protectiorl to the petitioner lands l.A. NO: 1 OtF 2017(WPMP. NO: 213'!0 OF 20171 Petition underSection 151 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 responde'nts 3 & 4 to provide protection to the petitioner property to an extent of Ac.7-30 gts in Sy No. 127 to 131(part) at Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar mandal, Ranrla Reddy District pursuant to the complaint dated 22.05.2017 of the petitioner, perrding disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B S S PRASAD-Not appeared Counset for the Respondent No.l to 4: MR G. ANIKETH REDDY, AGP FOR counsel for the Respondent No.s: ----HoME (TG) The Court marle the following: ORDER {n (h THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI Fr$l=t* This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief:, n.....to tssue a Writ Order or Direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent plice in not providingpolice protection to the petitioner property to an extent of Mfl gts in Sy.No !27 to 131, paftat Narcingi Village, RaienddNagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District basing on the Docket Order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the ll Additional Distict and Sessacns Judge, Ranga Reddy Distict at LB Nagar, pursuant to the complaint dated 22.05.2017 of the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural iustice and also violation of Aftictes 14 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police to provide protection to the petitioner tands in the interest of iustice and pass such other order...." 2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearang for respondents No.1 to 4.

4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the docket order relied upon by the petitioner does not contain any specific direction to the police authorities to extend protection in relation to the complaint dated 22.05.2017. ln the absence of instructions from the higher authorities, the assistance i I I . 2 sought by the petitioner was not rendered. Consequently, the contentir:n raised by the petitioner in this writ petition remains unsubstantiated, and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

5. I lrave given anxious consideration to the submissions advance<l and carefully examined the material available on record.

6. Ther petitioner has sought police protection on the basis of the interim injunction granted in l.A. No.1966 of 2014 in O.S. No.956 of 2014, pending before the learned ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

7. A perusal of the record makes it evident that though an interim injunction rras granted against respondents No.1 to 5, no direction was issuect by the Civil Court to the police authorities to provide assistance or protection. lt is well settled that when an injunction order is violated, the appropriate remedy lies under Order XXXIX Rules 2A and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The aggrieved party is required to bring the alleged violation to the notice of the Court concerned, which may initiate appropriate proceedings or grant ancillary directions, including police aid, to secure compliance. 3 case, the Petitioner' without invoking available under the CPC' Subh a course of action r}

8. ln the present the remedies exhausting police directlY for Protection \ unsustainabb in law' Gupla,(2010)

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Gou$' in AIka Gupta v Narende'X'* 10 SCC 141' has reiterated that when sp( lrovided under the CPC' parties must first approach o.rts orders rather than seeking writ ;r#;;;"nt under Article 226 ofthe constitution of ln'dia' similarly' in Sfafe of U'P' u' Harish Chandra' (1996) I SCC 309' it was : ;":;- iurisdiction emphasizedthatpoliceprotectlonincivildisputescanonlybe grantedpursuanttoajudicialorderdirectingsuchprotedion.

10. Thus, in the absence of any such direction -::'l-Civil Court' andbonsideringthatthematterremainswithintheseisinofthat court, the inaction of the polie authorities cannot be faulted' This court has, on earlier occasions, also held that a petition seeking enforcement of an interim or final decree,.alon$ wlth police assistance,mustbepursuedbeforetheExecutingCourtunder SectionlslcPc,andthatwitho.utexhaustingthisremedy,awrit petition under Article 226 is not maintainable' 4 11' rn view of the foregoing discussion, ft is crear that the petitioner''s prayer is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained in raw. Accordingyty, this writ petition is a,.;* There shar, be no order as to costs. Misce'aneous petitrbns, not maintainabre. ,, ppnding if any,sha, stand crosed. (i .4\(t //TRUE COPYII sD/- OFFICER To, J fXS,_83J?.'Sl 3. Two CD Copies touTI po.*.ffit% MMT TKS ?rqa, ff,Y8f;t:[?"0"?" State of Telangana I I HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 .iHES I ORDER WP.No -17443 of 2017 () ( t 2 4 JAll zffi (1 * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WffHOUT COSTS prnC .\v{ 6 4,\t