APHC010443992024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22920/2024 Between:

Kondapalli Koteswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutin of India seeking the following relief:

“…issue writ order or direction particularly in the nature writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.,4 to 6 to grant police aid in implementation of the order of injunction Dt:12.09.2016 passed in I.A No.1891/2016 in O.S No.335/2016 by the learned Prl., Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri declaring their inaction as violative under Art.,14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass orders…”

2. The petitioner filed a petition in I.A No.1891 of 2016 in O.S No.335 of 2016 on the file the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, to grant exparte temporary injunction, restraining the respondent Nos.7 to 12 from interfering with the right to joint passage/ causing obstruction to the plaint schedule properties connecting the eastern side Kunchanapalli Polimera Donka in Survey Nos.63 and 127 and Western side Kunchanapalli Kandhepu Donka in Survey Nos.35, 118 and 119 of Kunchanapalli and vice-versa.

3. The learned Trial Court granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.7 to 12 in causing obstruction to the joint right of passage through ABCDEF joint Nadava as shown in the plan appended to the plaint to have ingress and egress into the properties of the petitioner vide order dated

12.09.2016 and the relevant portion is extracted here under:

“In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2 from causing obstruction to the petitioners/plaintiffs in joint rights of the passage through ABCDEF joint nadava shown in plaint plan to have ingress and egress into the plaint schedule properties of the petitioners/plaintiffs their men, materials, cars, tractors, etc., from eastern side polimera donka to western side kandhepu donka and vice-versa till the respondents makes their appearance”.

4. In violation of the said order by the respondent Nos.7 to 12, it appears that the petitioner herein have approached the local police and made a complaint to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to provide police aid in implementation of the order of ad-interim injunction dated 12.09.2016.

5. As the respondent Nos.4 to 6 being the police authorities have not extended the police aid to the petitioner, hence the present writ petition is filed seeking to direct to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to grant police aid, as per the ad-interim injunction granted in I.A No.1891 of 2016 in O.S No.335 of 2016.

6. There is no representation for the petitioner.

7. It is imperative to extract the relevant provision of CPC for appreciation and disposal of the writ petitioner.

“2-A: Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction:- (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Co