IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10316 of 2006 Between: 1 Janapareedy Sanyasamma (died), 2 Veesam Satyavamma, W/o. Sanyasinaidu, Sytarpeta, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Veesam Veera Balaji Satya Prasad, S/o.Sanyasinaidu, D.No.16-1-34, Upstairs, Opp: Collectorate, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Anakapalli Town P.S., Visakhapatnam District. 2 Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam , Visakhapatnam District. 3 District General of Police of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Chairman, District Legal Service Authority, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Administrative Officer, State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. 6 Thummalapaenta Chencheyya, S/o. Kondaiah, Trunk Road, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.S.C.BOSE Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.6: MR. K.V.SIMHADRI ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not protecting the petitioners’ possession in respect of property bearing Door No. 12-1-26 situated at Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.6 resulted in decreeing of O.S.No.84 of 1991 filed by respondent No.6 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, on 25.07.2005. The petitioners thereupon filed A.S.No.227 of 2005 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. According to the petitioners, in I.A.No.80 of 2005, the said Court granted injunction against respondent No.6 from altering the existing structures on the disputed land. The petitioners alleged that in violation of the said order, respondent No.6, in collusion with third parties, made alterations. The petitioners claimed that they have approached respondent No.1 on 09.10.2005 to lend protection to the property for ensuring compliance with the order of the appellate Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The Code of Civil Procedure provided for appropriate remedies, if an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction is violated. Armed with an order, a party cannot rush to the police and straight away seek its compliance. Respondent No.1, therefore, rightly refrained from interfering with the civil disputes. If the petitioners had a legitimate grievance of violation of the order of a competent Court, they are entitled to seek appropriate police protection by moving the Court, which granted the order. They also have a remedy of seeking appropriate action by the Court against the persons, who violated the order. However, on the pretext of alleged violation of an order of a competent Court, the petitioners cannot straight away approach the police and seek their interference in the civil disputes. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.12965 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st JUNE, 2009. kvni