K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of W. P. No. 1935/82. In that writ petition the appellant herein sought for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction against respondents 1 to 3 Police Officers to render police help to him in maintaining his possession of the suit land bearing S. No. 45 of Kandikal Village, Charminar Taluk, Hyderabad District, which formed the subject matter of O. S. No. 3770 of 1980 on the file of the Third Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as per the directions issued in I. A. 3510/81 on 29/09/1981. That order was confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court in C. M. A. 189/81. C. R. P. No. 3258 of 1981 filed against the judgement therein was dismissed by this Court. In the result, there is a temporary injunction order pending disposal of the suit in favour of the appellant herein restraining respondents 4 and 5 from interfering with his possession by themselves or through their servants or agents. It is the case of the appellant that upon his application seeking police help to protect his possession, the Court directed police help to be given to him. That order was not varied by the High Court which dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. In the result, there is not only a temporary injunction order in favour of the appellant but also a direction by the Civil Court to render all police help to protect his possession, so that the temporary injunction order may be effectively enforced. Notwithstanding such an order, it is the complaint of the appellant that the police is not rendering any help and the respondents 4 and 5 are likely to dispossess him. He, therefore, sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate direction. That writ petition was dismissed by our learned brother Jeevan Reddy. J. While dismissing the Writ Petition the learned single Judge observed:"there can be little doubt about the position in law that it is the orders of the Civil Court that prevail on the question of possession. Even if the police has found, on verification that the defendants are in possession, that finding or report is of no consequence so long as the order of the temporary injunction issued by the court stands. "the learned single Judge further observed: The police shall however not support either party shall however not support either party to the dispute and allow them to fight out the dispute in a civil court unless any fresh or further orders are issued by the court to the police in this behalf. Of course, police can also take necessary steps to maintain law and order, if any such situation arises. But even while doing so, they should act consistent with the orders of the Court, if any, in force at the relevant time.

( 2 ) IT is the grievance of the appellant that since the writ petition was dismissed and the police is not rendering any help, respondents 4 and 5 are trying to take the law into their own hands and dispossess him.

( 3 ) THE legal position as observed by the learned single Judge does not admit of any doubt that the orders of the Civil Court prevail on the question of possession. Any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil court especially when that finding has been upheld by this court by dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. The only authority that can vary that finding is the Supreme Court. None of the parties in this case have moved the Supreme Court questioning the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. That being the position, no authority in the State, revenue or police, can ignore the finding of the Civil Court of refuse to take steps to see that the order of the Civil Court is implemented and the party, in whose favour there is the order of the Civil Court, gets all help to maintain the law and order and not allow the other party to contravene the injunction order and create law and order problem.

( 4 ) MR. Jagannadha Rao, learned coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document