##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.2471 OF 2020

DATE : 23.03.2026

Between:

Aitha Pochi Reddy

…Petitioner AND

State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“….to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not providing police protection pursuant to the application dated 05-12-2019 in respect of the property in Survey No.86 admeasuring Ac.4-25 Gts., and Ac.1-15 in Survey No.87 situated at Ambatpally Village, Mahadevpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District (old Karimnagar District), pursuant to the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Manthani dated 27-

07-2018 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and to pass….”

2. Heard Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police authorities have failed to take appropriate action by extending

2

police protection pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2019, in respect of the petition schedule property. It is contended that such inaction persists despite the petitioner having obtained a judgment and decree in O.S. No.14 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, dated 27.07.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been

filed seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that upon receipt of the petitioner’s representation, the same was duly considered. However, in the absence of any specific direction issued by the competent Civil Court for providing police protection, no further action was taken. It is further contended that it is a well- settled principle of law that for enforcement of a civil decree, the aggrieved party must avail remedies before the Executing Court, and without exhausting such statutory remedies, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police protection is

not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite obtaining a decree in O.S. No.14 of 2017, the defendants in the said suit are

3

attempting to dispossess him from the petition schedule property by employing third parties. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a

representation to the police authorities seeking protection.

7. The explanation offered by the respondent police authorities indicates that the petitioner’s representation was considered; however, in the absence of a specific direction from the Civil Court, no coercive or preventive steps were taken. This position demonstrates that there is no absolute inaction on the part of the

police.

8. It is pertinent to note that a decree passed by a Civil Court is enforceable through the mechanism provided under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Where a decree holder alleges interference with possession, the appropriate remedy lies in initiating execution proceedings before the competent Executing Court, which is empowered to grant necessary relief, including police aid, for

effective implementation of the decree.

9. The legal position in this regard is well settled. A Division Bench of this Court in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana has categorically held that a person seeking enforcement of a civil decree must approach the Civil/Executing Court, and that a writ

4

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for such purpose,

without availing the statutory remedy, is not maintainable.

10. In the present case, the pleadings clearly indicate that the alleged interference is at the instance of the defendants or their associates. There