THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.29823 OF 2016

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the in action of respondent No.2 in directing the respondent No.3 to provide necessary police aid to the petitioner for effective implementation of the orders dated 06.04.2016 in I.A. No.257 of 2011 in O.S. No.96 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide police aid to the petitioner for effective implementation of the orders dated 06.04.2016 in I.A. No.257 of 2011 in O.S. No.96 of 2011 on the fiel of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District ……….”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking police aid for implementation of the temporary injunction order passed in I.A. No. 257 of 2011 in O.S. No. 96 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar.

3.2. He further submits that the Civil Court did not issue any specific direction to the police authorities for extending police aid in execution of the temporary injunction. Consequently, the respondents could not have acted suo motu. Although this Court, by interim order dated 07.09.2016 in the present writ petition, directed the police authorities to extend protection, the petitioner never approached the concerned police station furnishing the particulars necessary for implementation of such direction, such as the date, time, and nature of assistance required. Hence, no action was taken by the respondent police authorities. He further submits that, during the pendency of this writ petition, O.S. No. 96 of 2011 was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 27.03.2018. As a result, the interim order of temporary injunction merged with the final decree. Accordingly, the petitioner is required to avail the statutory remedies before the Executing Court, and the present writ petition is therefore not maintainable.

4. I have perused the material on record.

5. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents/police authorities failed to provide protection for implementing the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court.

However, the respondent police authorities assert that notwithstanding the interim direction issued by this Court in the present writ petition, the petitioner never approached them with requisite particulars enabling the police to extend assistance. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents were inactive or failed to comply.

6. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court, in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana, 2023 (1) ALT 765 (DB), and Mudraboina Odhelu v. State of Telangana, MANU/TL/0359/2023, has categorically held that a party seeking enforcement of an injunction or decree must first avail the remedy before the Executing Court and the writ jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory execution mechanism. Further emphasized that an application seeking police aid must be filed before the Executing Court and only upon such orders being passed can the police extend assistance.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the Civil Court either for police protection during the subsistence of the temporary injunction or for enforcement of the final decree dated 27.03.2018. Once the suit was decreed, the interim temporary injunction merged with the final decree under the well- established doctrine of merger. Therefore, the petitioner must necessarily invoke the jurisdiction of the Executing Court, which alone is competent to issue directions for enforcement of the decree, including grant of police aid if warranted.

8. In view of the above legal position and the developments reported by the l