IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No. 3524 OF 2019

DATED: 17.12.2025

Between:

Sirimalle Sridhar,

S/o. Tukaram. … Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep., by its Principal Secretary (Home),

Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 Others. … Respondents

:: O R D E R ::

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue Writ, order or direction preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in providing police protection to the petitioner despite injunction order in I.A.No. 1549 of 2015 in O.S.No. 1225 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015 on the file of the Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and despite representations dated 08.01.2019 and 08.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-02 gts, in Sy.No.325/B2/1, situated at Paidipalli (V), Warangal Urban (M), Warangal District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner in view of Injunction Order granted in I.A.No. 1549 of 2015 in O.S.No.1225 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015 on the file of the learned II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and pass…”

2. Heard Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to provide police protection in pursuance of the order dated 10.12.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1549 of 2015 in O.S. No. 1225 of 2015 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, since there was no specific direction in the said order for providing police protection or police aid, the representations made by the petitioner could not be acted upon. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, the proper course would have been to approach the Civil Court concerned seeking a specific direction for police protection. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that seeking police intervention for extension or enforcement of an injunction order, without first approaching the Civil Court for appropriate directions, is improper. It is further submitted that the allegations made against respondent No. 4 are baseless and devoid of merit. Hence, dismissal of the writ petition is sought insofar as respondent No. 4 is concerned.

6. I have perused the material placed on record.

7. The substance of the petitioner’s prayer is for issuance of a direction to provide police protection in pursuance of the temporary injunction order granted by the Civil Court. A perusal of the said order reveals that no specific direction was issued therein for providing police protection. Furthermore, in the event of any alleged violation of the injunction order by the respondent/defendant in the suit, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court concerned seeking necessary directions for enforcement or protection. A similar issue has been considered and settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Kabakula Padma v. State of Telangana, (2023) 1 ALT 765, and by a co-ordinate bench in W.P. No. 8698 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, It is held that, if the petitioner apprehends any interference with the property involved in the suit, in respect of which an interim order or decree has been passed, the proper course is to initiate appropriate proceedings by filing an execution petition before the competent Civil Court. Without taking such s