Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13966
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M. Mohiuddin, J
Naser Salahuddin Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.447 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Katika Ravinder Reddy
For the Respondents: Mahesh Raje
A writ petition for police aid to enforce a civil decree is not maintainable under Article 226 if the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, as the executing court is the proper authority to grant such aid.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Police Protection - Enforcement of Civil Decree - Seeking police aid under Article 226 to implement a decree of perpetual injunction is not maintainable when efficacious remedies exist under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Para 15, 20)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Decrees - Order XXI Rule 32 and Order XXXIX Rule 2A - The CPC is a self-contained mechanism for enforcing injunctions; police aid is ancillary and subject to the directions of the executing court. (Para 12, 13, 17)
(C) Alternative Remedy - Statutory Mechanism - Bypassing the executing court on grounds of delay or multiplicity of proceedings is impermissible if the statutory remedy is efficacious. (Para 19)
Issues: Whether a decree-holder can directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to seek police aid for the implementation of a decree of perpetual injunction without exhausting remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the decree of perpetual injunction and the single judge's refusal to grant police aid via writ jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. competing arguments on whether police protection is a statutory duty or an execution process under cpc. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. the code of civil procedure provides a comprehensive and self-contained mechanism for the enforcement of civil decrees. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. writ jurisdiction under article 226 cannot be used to bypass statutory execution remedies provided by the cpc. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. affirmation of the lower court's discretion to relegate the party to the executing court. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record.
2. This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10025 of 2026. By the said order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the underlying writ petition holding that the prayer for police aid to enforce a decree of perpetual injunction was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction, while granting liberty to the appellants to approach the competent civil Court.
Factual matrix
3. The appellants claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.5.37 Gts., in Sy.No.745, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Out of the said extent, appellant No.1 is stated to be the owner and possessor of Ac.2.3850 Gts, and appellant No.2 is the owner and possessor of an equivalent extent of Ac.2.3850 Gts.
4. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein (private respondents), who have no manner of right, title, or interest over the subject property, are alleged to have repeatedly attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants. In view of such unlawful interference, the appellants filed O.S.No.2272 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. The said suit, after a full-fledged trial came to be decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2023, whereby the private respondents were permanently restrained from interfering with the appellants’ possession, which has attained finality and continues to subsist.
5. Alleging continued interference despite the decree, the appellants submitted representations dated 27.02.2026 and 07.03.2026 to the concerned police authorities seeking police aid and protection for effective implementation of the decree and to prevent breach of peace. Despite acknowledgment of the said representations, no action was taken by the police authorities.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing underlying writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the official respondents to extend police protection.
6. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.04.2026, placing reliance upon the decision in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana , (2023) 1 ALT 765 held that a writ petition seeking police aid for enforcement of a civil Court decree is not maintainable unless the petitioner has first exhausted the remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the competent civil Court or the executing Court, and accordingly disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies before the competent civil Court in accordance with law.
7. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellants
8. Learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned order and has advanced his submissions as under:
i) That the appellants are in possession of a valid, subsisting, and binding decree of perpetual injunction dated 03.01
