Telangana High Court
Lingala Renuka vs The State Of Telangana on 13 June, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 8698 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
".. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not providing 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, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 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, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Manchikantla Vishnuvardhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and perused the record.
3. Petitioner contends that though he had obtained a judgment and decree dt.19.09.2024 in her favour in O.S.No.158 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge - cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, the respondents-authorities are not providing police protection to the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree for its execution, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the respondents to provide police protection.
2
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 Court of Civil jurisdiction had obtained a judgment and decree in respect of suit schedule property, which is 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 providing 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-authorities did not give police aid. 3
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner instead of availing further remedies provided under CPC is seeking to implement the aforesaid order by using police force which is not permitted in law.
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner by the present Writ Petition has called in question the inaction of the respondents- authorities in providing police protection for implementation of the judgment and decree dt.19.09.2024 in O.S.No.158 of 2015 without showing to this Court of the petitioner having taken steps for enforcing the aforesaid decree obtained by her in the civil suit, by filing execution proceedings and also an application therein seeking police aid for implementation of the said judgment and decree.
9. Further, this Court in W.P.No.821 of 2025 by following the earlier judgment in S.M asthan Saheb and others v/ s. P .S.R . Anjaneyulu and others 1 had held that the power of police authorities is only with regard to ensuring maintenance of law and order and the authorities cannot involve themselves in civil dispute.
10. Since, the petitioner by approaching the respondents-authorities is seeking to enforce the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, this Court 1 2002(2) AnWR 532 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.158 of 2015 only on 19.09.2024, and if the petitioner feels of any interference of her property by the unofficial respondent contrary to the judgment and decree, in the aforesaid suit, has to initiate action firstly by filing execution petition and secondly, execution application therein, and for the said reason, cannot approach the respondents-authorities 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 petition shall stand closed.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:13.06.2025 GJ