IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1387 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/09/2008 in WP NO : 19029 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Y. Govardhana Naidu, S/o. Late Y. Nagama Naidu, R/o. N.R. Puram Village, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 Y. Babu Naidu, S/o. Y. Govardhana Naidu, R/o. N.R. Puram Village, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Y. Ramesh Naidu, S/o. Y. Govardhana Naidu, R/o. N.R. Puram Village, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 Y. Bhupati Naidu, S/o. Y. Govardhana Naidu, R/o. N.R. Puram Village, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Inspector of Police, Karvetinagaram Police Station, Karvetinagaram, Chittoor District. 3 The Station House Officer, S.R. Puram Police Station, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the :MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1387 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 25.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the Writ Petition No.19029 of 2008, by granting leave and liberty to the writ petitioners to take appropriate steps before the civil Court. 3. Appellants are the writ petitioners and the respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants filed a suit O.S.No.279 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, and also an application I.A.No.1362 of 2007, seeking to grant temporary injunction in respect of the petition schedule property, which was allowed. Another application I.A.No.1363 of 2007 had also been filed, seeking to grant police protection and the trial Court, upon considering the matter, granted police protection until further orders. Subsequently, the said writ petition was filed by the appellants before this Court complaining that the third respondent is not providing police protection to them as per the order, dated 12.04.2007, passed by the trial Court, in I.A.No.1363 of 2007, but the same was dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, inasmuch as, the interim order, passed by the trial Court, in I.A.No.1363 of 2007, is to the effect that police protection be provided to protect the property of the appellants until further orders, it should be construed that, on all occasions, as and when required, the Police shall accord protection to the property of the appellants. 6. It is difficult for us to agree with this contention. 7. It is to be remembered that the civil Court passed the order, dated 12.04.2007, in I.A.No.1363 of 2007, taking into account the facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the application thereof. It does not necessarily mean that the police are directed to protect the property of the appellants all through the pendency of the litigation before the civil Court. In other words, only during the subsistence of the interim order, the police have an obligation to protect the property of the appellants. 8. The question as to whether the protection accorded by the Police to the property of the appellants, by virtue of the order of the trial Court, should be continued for ever and all through the pendency of the civil proceedings, would depend much upon the facts and circumstances of the case and also the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the application I.A.No.1363 of 2007. 9. It is to be seen that, in the impugned order, the learned single Judge had pointed out that it is the case of the appellants that when the Police did not accord protection, the matter had been reported to the third respondent i.e., the Station House Officer, S.R. Puram Police Station, Chittoor District, but, no action has been taken. Therefore, the appellants have submitted a representation to the first respondent-Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, despite which, no action has been taken against the defendants in the suit, who are not parties to the writ petition. Of course, a separate application has been filed before this Court seeking impleadment of the defendants. Learned single Judge further pointed out that the learned Government Pleader placed on record the counter-affidavit demonstrating that police aid was provided to the appellants in compliance of the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, in I.A.No.1363 of 2007, and a memo was also filed to that effect before that Court. In such an event, as pointed out by us, earlier, it has to be construed that the interim order passed by the trial Court was only to the extent of the cause of action that had arisen at the relevant point of time when the application I.A.No.1363 of 2007 was filed and particularly, when the Police, in compliance of the order passed by the trial Court, granted protection, the purpose of the said interim order passed by the trial Court had to be understood as seized. 10. Further, if any cause of action arises, another application can be filed before the trial Court and basing on the order, if any, passed by it, the Police will act. In the instant case, admittedly, no such order, passed by the trial Court, is present, as of now. 11. As already pointed out, the appellants had already resorted to alternative remedy by giving a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned and also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, the first and third respondents, respectively. 12. This Court cannot exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the entire dispute is pending before a competent civil Court and obviously, when a remedy, as provided under law, is available to the appellants, both under the Code of Civil Procedure and also under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously, in the instant case, the appellants had exercised their alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, since it is the grievance of the appellants that the police are not taking any action, respondents 1 and 3, particularly respondent No.3 is directed to proceed in accordance with law, upon any complaint made by the appellants. 13. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 17th November 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Inspector of Police, Karvetinagaram Police Station, Karvetinagaram, Chittoor District. 3 The Station House Officer, S.R. Puram Police Station, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, (OUT). 5 2CD copies