THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6972 of 2010 28.04.2010 Between: Mahesh Singh … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District And others. ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6972 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not taking action against sixth respondent who is allegedly making illegal constructions in spite of order of injunction passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1584 of 2005 in O.S.No.892 of 2005. He also seeks consequential direction to respondents to demolish illegal constructions made by sixth respondent on the land admeasuring Acs.2.24 guntas in survey Nos.53 and 54/A situated at Neknampura Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner’s father Narsing @ Munna Singh purchased Acs.4.24 guntas in survey Nos.53 and 54/A of Neknampura Village under an unregistered document from Sardar Singh. After death of father on 09.04.1998, petitioner tried to obtain sale deed. Petitioner came to know that vendor Sardar Singh colluded with third parties and executed sale deeds in their favour. Petitioner, therefore, filed O.S.No.892 of 2005 for cancellation of sale deed and specific performance of agreement of sale. In I.A.No.1584 of 2005, the said Court passed ad interim injunction order on 13.07.2005. It is the further case of petitioner that during pendency of civil suit, the alleged purchasers entered into development agreement with sixth respondent on 17.08.2007 and who commenced developmental work and making constructions violating injunction order. Petitioner has already approached civil Court for specific performance of agreement of sale allegedly executed by Sardar Singh in favour of his father. He also obtained injunction. He has number of options and remedies to enforce order of injunction and a writ petition to enforce order of injunction and a writ petition to enforce injunction order at this stage is misconceived. A Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani v Parchuri Koteshwara Rao[1], considered an extent and scope of the power of civil Court under Section 94(e), Order XXI Rule 32 and Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to order police protection for enforcing an order of injunction. After interpreting various provisions in harmonious way, this Court laid down the following principles. (i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party. (iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v Urvashi Gulati[2] and Anil Ratan Sarkar v Hirak Ghosh[3], in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and nor mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court. Therefore, if an order of injunction in I.A.No.1584 of 2005, dated 13.07.2005 is violated, the remedy of petitioner is to file an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. A writ petition is not a proper remedy. Learned counsel for petitioner does not seriously dispute the legal position. The writ petition is misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 28.04.2010 pln [1] 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB) [2] (2001) 7 SCC 530 [3] (2002) 4 SCC 21