IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.15453 of 2015

07^th April, 2026 Between:

Thati Eshwari …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not providing police protection in view of injunction order granted in I.A.NO.49/2015 in O.S.No.43/2015 dt-28-4-2015 on the file of learned Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist., in respect of schedule property i.e., house property bearing Plot No.5-35 and 5-38 in Sy.Nos.49/A and 49/AA in an extent of each 400 sq.yards totaling 800 sq.yards situated at Industrial and Rice Mill area of Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem Mandal of Khammam Dist., despite repeated requests and representation dt-29-4- 2015 submitted to the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 police to provide police protection by taking action against the culprits and pass any other order this Honble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice...........”

2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the injunction order granted by the civil Court in I.A. No. 49 of 2015 in O.S. No. 43 of 2015 dated 28.04.2015 on the file of the learned Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to provide police protection. Aggrieved by such inaction, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that there is no specific direction issued by the civil Court for extending police protection. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any cognizable offence, the respondent police have not taken any action. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-implementation of the injunction order, the proper course is to approach the competent civil Court for execution, in accordance with the settled principles of law. Therefore, the present petition, which seeks police protection simpliciter, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the allegations made against respondent No. 3 are without any basis and that the petitioner’s claims are misconceived. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. The substance of the petitioner’s grievance is that the police have failed to extend protection in furtherance of an injunction order granted by the civil Court, and the petitioner seeks enforcement of the said order through this writ petition.

9. The legal position in this regard is well settled. The Division Bench of this Court in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana, (2023) 1 ALT 765, has categorically held that where a party seeks implementation or enforcement of an order or decree passed by a civil Court, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the competent Civil/Executing Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly under Order XXI relating to execution of decrees. It has been further held that, without exhausting such statutory remedy, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, except in exceptional circumstances.

10. In the present case, the material placed on record does not disclose that the petitioner has taken any steps before the competent Civil Court for execution or enforcement