IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.31774 of 2014

17^th April, 2026 Between:

Vudumula Seetharamireddy …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 in providing police protection in respect of the suit schedule property of O.S.N0.105/2012 by implementing the orders of the Honble Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist., passed in I.A.No.95/2012 in O.S.NO.105/2012 dt-12-9-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate steps for providing police protection to the subject property as per the orders of the Honble Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist............”

2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the inaction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in providing police protection in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 105 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 95 of 2012 was allowed and an order of interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that, for effective implementation of the said injunction order, the petitioner approached respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 seeking police protection; however, no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court, and by order dated 08.12.2014, this Court directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take appropriate action, provided the injunction order granted by the Civil Court remained in force. In light of the continued inaction, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the relief sought by the petitioner in the interlocutory application was limited to the grant of temporary injunction, and there was neither a prayer for police protection nor any direction issued by the Civil Court in that regard. It is further contended that the alleged transfer of title, as claimed by the petitioner, is legally untenable, as the transactions are stated to be non-est and not capable of adjudication in the manner asserted. It is also argued that, in the absence of an independent enforceable right to seek police protection, invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. The core grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have failed to provide police protection for enforcement of the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court. In substance, the relief sought is for implementation and enforcement of an interlocutory order passed in a pending civil suit. However, it is evident from the record that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly by approaching the Civil Court or the executing Court for enforcement of the injunction order.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and cannot ordinarily be invoked for enforcement of civil court orders when efficacious alternative remedies are available under the Code of Civil Procedure. In cases of disobedience or breach of an injunction order, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek appropriate relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or to initiate execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked as a subst