SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 7288

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J
Routhu Kranthi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.24468 OF 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: D. Pradeep

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for seeking the implementation of an order or decree passed by a Civil Court; the aggrieved party must instead file an execution petition in the concerned Civil Court.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondent police to provide aid for the implementation of a temporary injunction order granted in I.A.No.44 of 2019 in O.S.No.253 of 2019. The court found that the petitioner had not approached the concerned Civil Court for the execution of the said order. The primary issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable for the implementation of a decree or order passed by a Civil Court. The court reasoned that if a party seeks implementation of a Civil Court order, the aggrieved party must approach the court concerned by filing an appropriate execution petition, and seeking a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for such implementation is not maintainable. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. request for police aid to implement a civil injunction order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. writ not maintainable for execution of civil court orders. (Para 5 , 6)
3. disposal of the writ petition. (Para 7)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not providing the police aid for implementation of the injunction orders granted in favour of the petitioner by the Hon’ble Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam in I.A.No.44 of 2019 in O.S.No.253 of 2019, dated 23.11.2019 whereby the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner Ac.2-06 Gts. in Sy.No.71/A2, situated at Solipuram Village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide police protection for the implementation of the injunction orders and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case …”

2. None appears for the petitioners. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioners sought for providing police protection/aid for implementation of temporary injunction order granted in I.A.No.44 of 2019 in O.S.No.253 of 2019, dated 23.11.2019. As there was no specific direction from the Court concerned, the police could not extend the aid as prayed for. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, they ought to have approached the Civil Court concerned or had taken steps as per the procedure contemplated under Code of Civil Procedure and thus prayed for passing appropriate orders.

4. I have perused the materials on record.

5. The essence of the petitioners grievance is that the respondent police failed to extend the protection in pursuance with the temporary injunction order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the learned Civil Court. The law in this regard is well settled. A division bench in this Court in Kabbakula Padma Vs. State of Telangana ,[ WRIT APPEAL No.660 of 2022 dated 17-10-2022 ] and others had categorically held that, If the petitioner seeks implementation of an order or decree passed by a Civil Court, the aggrieved party has to approach the Court concerned by filing an appropriate petition/execution petition, and seeking a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for such implementation is not maintainable.

6. Having regard to this legal position and as the material placed on record are not indicating that the petitioners has availed such remedy before the Civil Court concerned and in the absence of any extraordinary circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioners right is reserved to approach the Civil Court concerned, in accordance with law, if the cause still subsists.

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top