THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1505 OF 2008 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at the stage of admission. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.22611/2008, refusing to grant police protection, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.7337/2007 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent for perpetual injunction in respect of property bearing M.C.H.No.8-3- 633/104/2 in old Sy.No.39/1 (new survey nos.132, 133 and 135) consisting of two dilapidated rooms along with boundary walls admeasuring 60 sq. yards situate at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. The suit was decreed ex parte. On the ground that 2nd respondent is interfering with her possession, the appellant filed I.A.No.522/2008 seeking police protection and the same was dismissed on 21.8.2008. Subsequently she obtained construction permission, but could not commence the construction, allegedly, due to interference by the 2nd respondent and hence she approached the 1st respondent for police assistance, but the same was not given. Therefore, she filed the writ petition for declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting police protection for enforcement of the decree, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned single Judge of this court holding that if the appellant is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the court below in the I.A. filed for police protection, she ought to have preferred a revision and not a writ petition. Further, the learned single Judge relying on the Division Bench judgment of this court in SATYANARAYANA v. S.H.O. P.S.SANTHOSHNAGAR [1] held if the civil court passed an order granting police protection in respect of an injunction order and if the same is not obeyed, this court can issue a writ of Mandamus to the police and in the instant case as the application seeking for police protection was dismissed, the writ petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellant has obtained the decree for perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent and, after obtaining a sanction plan from the municipal corporation, is proceeding with the construction of the house and in spite of the decree for perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent with regard to the suit schedule property, the 2nd respondent and his men were interfering with the suit schedule property and this amounts to flouting the injunction orders passed by the civil court and the trial court has erroneously dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant seeking police protection. He contended that the I.A. filed by the appellant seeking police protection has been dismissed on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the rights of the appellant have been declared by the civil court by passing a final decree for perpetual injunction and when the same is violated by the 2nd respondent by causing interference, the appellant can invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking police protection and the order of the learned single Judge that only a revision petition is maintainable and not the writ petition, is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in P.R.MURLIDHARAN v. SWAMI DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR[2]. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant had obtained a decree for perpetual injunction. It is to be noticed that there is an effective alternative remedy to file an execution petition, as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, no such petition has been filed. Further, under Section 51 of C.P.C., which deals with the power of the court to enforce execution, different modes have been provided. The Criminal Procedure Law also provides for making a complaint to the Magistrate under Chapter XV. When the procedural law specifically provides an effective remedy for execution of the decree passed by the civil court, we do not find any justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the judgment of the Apex Court ( 2 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts reveal that the respondent therein filed a suit in O.S.No.71/2000 on the file of Munsif Court, Kolencherry, for declaration that he is entitled to continue in certain office and the said suit was dismissed for default and the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was also dismissed. In these circumstances, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he sought for police protection for continuing in that particular office and the Division Bench of the Kerla High Court, having gone into the question of the entitlement of the respondent for holding that particular office, gave a categorical finding of fact in favour of the respondent. The facts of the case further reveal that with regard to the very same subject matter, another suit in O.S.No.30/2002 is also pending on the file of the very same court. Considering these facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that when the respondent failed for one reason or the other in the civil suit, he could not file a writ petition for getting the selfsame issues determined in his favour. Further, the Apex Court found fault with the order of the Division Bench in adjudicating the disputed questions of fact under the writ jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that in a given case a person may be entitled to police protection having regard to the threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil court and if the court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to perform their duties. However, the Apex Court held at paragraph No.13 that “. . , the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In the case of this nature, a writ proceedings cannot be substantiated for a civil suit.” At paragraph No.17 it was held as under: “A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance for such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations.” 7. From the above judgment of the Apex Court, it could be seen that police protection can be granted for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil court and if the court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to perform their duties. The facts of the present case are quite different. As already noted above, the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. In the present case, though the right of the appellant has been declared, the I.A. filed by her before the court below after disposal of the suit, seeking police protection, has been dismissed and in such a case, if the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the court, she ought to have filed the revision petition. When the said order of dismissal is staring at the appellant, again approaching the 1st respondent – authorities for the very same relief and questioning the inaction on the part of the authorities in the writ petition, cannot be sustained. The Apex Court, in the decision (2 supra) held that, when the respondent therein was set ex parte in a decree and the petition filed by him under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C. was also dismissed, the writ petition, for the very same relief sought for in the suit and for police protection, is not maintainable. Therefore, in the light of the present facts and circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned single Judge. 8. Further, a Division Bench of this court in SATYANARAYANA v. S.H.O.P.S.SANTHOSHNAGAR (1 supra) relied on by the learned single Judge, held that if the civil court passed an order directing the police to give protection in respect of an injunction order and such order is not obeyed, this court can issue a writ of mandamus to the police. In the present case, the civil court has not granted any police protection and for the very same relief, the writ petition cannot be an answer. 9. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge and accordingly we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ---------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:18.11.2008 [1] AIR 1982 AP 394 [2] (2006)4 SCC 501