ORDER

Dt:01.11.2022 (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

This Writ Appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in Writ Petition, questioning the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.07.2022, by which the Writ Petition No.14025 of 2022 is allowed.

2) The appellant, who is the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition argues that the learned single Judge committed an error in directing the respondent police officials to provide police aid for implementation of the Court order in O.S.No.448 of 2011, which was confirmed in A.S.No.75 of 2017. It is his contention that under the guise of the said order the appellant is likely to be dispossessed with the aid of the police. It is also contended that there is no order passed for granting of police aid either in O.S.No.448 of 2011 or A.S.No.75 of 2017 and that consequently learned single Judge committed an error in granting police aid in the Writ Petition. Lastly, it is contended that the writ petition was allowed without giving an opportunity to the 4th respondent to file a counter and that the same is contrary to the Writ Rules and the rule of audi alteram partem.

3) In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home submit that as per the settled law on the subject this Court can grant police aid for the effective implementation of a Court order. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has lost the suit in O.S.No.448 of 2011, in which the petitioner’s title was upheld and a permanent injunction was also granted against the 4th respondent in the Writ. The Appeal filed was also dismissed. Once the order has attained the finality it is submitted that the Court can grant police aid to implement the said order. It is also pointed out that despite service of notice the 4th respondent did not appear before the learned single Judge.

4) After considering the submissions, this Court pointedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner if any further appeal was filed against the judgment and the decree in A.S.No.75 of 2017. Initially, the counsel pointed out that an appeal was filed but the record was not traceable in the registry and may have been lost in transit at the time of shifting the High Court. However, this Court directed the Registrar to cross check the facts and it transpires that the Second Appeal, which was filed, was returned with office objection and it was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant on 09.09.2019 itself.

Thereafter it was not represented.

5) Even otherwise this Court notices that the learned single Judge relied on the fact that in O.S.No.448 of 2011 a declaration was given of the petitioner’s title and a permanent injunction was also granted against the 4th defendant in Suit, who is the 4th respondent in Writ Petition and present appellant. Learned single Judge also noticed that despite the said order and judgment the 4th respondent is still interfering with the writ petitioner’s possession. In these circumstances, learned single Judge granted the police aid.

6) Earlier also in a number of cases this Court has been granting orders under Article 226 for the effective implementation of the judgments and decrees passed by the competent civil Court. In view of the settled law, this Court is of the opinion that the learned single Judge did not commit any error in allowing the Writ Petition. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Appeal.

7) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

8) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

SSV