The court held that police authorities must provide necessary assistance to Court Amins for the execution of civil decrees to ensure judicial efficacy and prevent decrees from becoming illusory, particularly when the decree holder faces obstruction from judgment debtors.

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… to pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in thenatureofWritofMandamus,declaringtheinactiontheRespondentNo.3, 4 and 5 herein in not providing Police aid / Protection to the Court Amin / Process Server for executing the delivery warrant issued by the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala in E.P. No. 50 of 2025 in O.S. No. 92 of 2015interaliaofanextentof234Sq.Yardsofsitesurroundedbycompound wallwith zinc sheet shedin S.No.49, presentBapatia District,old Prakasam District, Chirala Sub-District, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Bapatia District within the specific boundaries East Pinajala Chandrasekhara Vara Prasada Rao and others site. South Kama Bhaskara Rao and others. West Panchayath Bazar, North Yadavalli Radhakrishna Murthy,which inaction is illegal, arbitrary,violation of orders of the Execution Court and thereby depriving my right to have the fruits of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 92 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala and consequently direct the Respondents to implement the orders passedin E.A.No. 43 of2025 (filed under OrderXXI, Rule 97and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, to direct the SHO, Vetapalem, 5th respondent herein to provide police aid to Court Amin to remove the obstruction and hand over the physical possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Decree Holder), E.A.No.77 of 2025 (filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, in this application direction is sought to the Respondent No.4 herein) and E.A.No.148 of 2025 (filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, in this application direction is soughtto the RespondentNo.3) in E.P.No.50 of 2025in O.S.No.92 of 2015, same were allowed vide Orders Dated 29.05.2025, 23.07.2025 and 25.10.2025respectivelyandpass…”

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Smt. Jhansi Guduru, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, having obtained a lawful decree of possession in O.S.No.92 of 2015, is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, owing to the persistent and contumacious inaction of Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5. Despite categorical judicial directions in E.A.Nos.43, 77, and 148 of 2025, coupled with repeated issuance of delivery warrants, the statutory authorities have abdicated their bounden duty to render police assistance to the Court Amin. Such dereliction not only frustrates the solemn decree dated 28.11.2024 but also strikes at the very root of judicial efficacy, rendering nugatory the execution process envisaged under Order XXI of ‘the C.P.C.’ The Petitioner, though armed with a decree and successive orders, continues to be unlawfully dispossessed, her entitlement thwarted by the recalcitrance of the Judgment Debtors and the apathy of the police machinery.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the conduct of Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5 amounts to a flagrant violation of constitutional and statutory obligations. The Execution Court, in its wisdom, has repeatedly directed the provision of police aid, recognizing the obstructions and threats posed by the Judgment Debtors. Yet, the Respondents have deliberately failed to act, thereby facilitating continued illegal occupation of the Suit Schedule Property. Such inaction is not merely administrative indifference but constitutes contemptuous disregard of judicial orders, undermining the majesty of law and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has endured humiliation, physical assault upon her husband, and repeated indignities, all documented in the reports of the Court Amin, yet the Respondents remain unmoved.

5. In these circumstances, learned