IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 19.01.2026 Between :

Yalamanchili Durga Rani … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and five others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 3 in providing police aid for implementation of the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 281/1992 dt. 26-11-1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Hyderabad, West and South, R.R. District, is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, in the absence of any specific direction or order from the Civil Court or the Executing Court, no police protection or assistance has been extended to the petitioner. He further contends that, if the petitioner continues to be aggrieved, the proper course available to her would be to approach the Civil Court concerned and seek appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. Accordingly, he prays that this Court may pass appropriate directions as deemed fit.

5.1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that, as an interim measure, this Court had earlier directed the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate (respondent No. 3), to provide police protection to the petitioner. However, the said interim direction was challenged by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being the legal representatives of respondent No. 4, in Writ Appeal No. 1457 of 2018. The Hon’ble Division Bench, upon due consideration, noted that by the date of the alleged interference, respondent No. 4 was no longer alive, and consequently, vacated the interim order. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner’s prayer is premised on factually incorrect assertions.

5.2. The learned counsel further contends that if the petitioner seeks implementation or enforcement of a Civil Court decree, the appropriate and lawful remedy lies before the Executing Court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), and not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle, it is submitted, has been conclusively settled by various coordinate Benches of this Court, including in W.P. No. 3975 of 2023 (Bonakurthi Sanjay v. State of Telangana and others) and W.P. No. 21459 of 2023, decided on 03.01.2024 and 04.01.2024, respectively. Therefore, the allegations made against respondent No. 4 (unofficial respondent) are without basis, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.

6. Having perused the material on record, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner centers around the alleged inaction of the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, in extending police assistance for execution of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 281 of 1992. In substance, the petitioner is seeking enforcement of a Civil Court decree through the present writ petition. However, as clearly borne out from the pleadings, the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies available before the competent Executing Court. The law is well settled that a party seeking execution or enforcement of a Civil Court decree must necessarily proceed under Order XXI Rules 10, 32, and 97 of the CPC, which provide the procedural mechanism for execution of decrees and for seeking police assistance, where necessary.

7. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Kabbakula Padma v