THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12135 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 4, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 4th respondent is not providing police protection pursuant to the order passed in EP.No.12/2003 in OS.No.1784/2004 on the file of the I Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the Court Bailiff was seeking to execute the warrant, dt.17.03.2025, issued in the aforesaid EP on 20.03.2025, as he was resisted from executing the same, he had approached the respondents- authorities and sought for taking action against the 5^th respondent, but no action has been taken thereon by the respondents, which it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, dereliction of duties and disrespect to the orders of the Court.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents, by drawing attention of the Court to the report of the Bailiff, dt.20.03.2025, would submit that the respondents-authorities have provided police protection for execution of warrant, dt.17.03.2025, on 20.03.2025, and when the aforesaid warrant was sought to be executed, the unofficial respondent No.5 had resisted the execution of the said warrant, and for the said reason, the Court Bailiff could not execute the warrant and the same is endorsed by the Bailiff on the warrant, and mentioned in the report submitted to the Hon’ble Court.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the aforesaid report of the Bailiff would clearly indicate the respondents-authorities providing necessary police aid for execution of the Warrant, dt.17.03.2025, on 20.03.2025, and as such the claim of the petitioner of the respondents not providing police protection to the Court Bailiff on 20.03.2025 is factually an incorrect statement.

7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that on the Court Bailiff failing to execute the warrant on 20.03.2025 due to the resistance of the unofficial respondent, the unofficial respondent had approached this Court by filing CRP(SR).No. 12470 of 2025 on the following day and obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings in EP.No.12/2003 until further orders, vide order, dt.21.03.2025, wherein the petitioner herein has also been arrayed as respondent.

8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

9. Though the petitioner claims of the 4th respondent not taking any action in providing police protection pursuant to the order in EP.No.12/2003, the report of the Bailiff, dt.20.03.2025, as filed before the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, shows the respondents-authorities providing police protection for execution of the Warrant, dt.17.03.2025, on

20.03.2025.

10. Further, a reading of the report would also show that it is on account of the resistance of the unofficial respondent herein, the Bailiff could not execute the warrant on 20.03.2025 and the said warrant has been returned to the Court.

11. Since, the unofficial respondent herein had approached this Court on the following day i.e., on 21.03.2025 by filing a CRP(SR).No.12470 of 2025, and this Court having granted stay of all further proceedings in EP.No.12/2003, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that the 4th respondent had failed to provide police protection for execution of the warrant, dt.17.03.2025 issued in EP.No.12/2003.

12. However, taking note of the fact that this Court in CRP having granted stay of all further p