Judgment:
ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in granting Police Protection to them to safeguard their rights over the suit schedule property in Survey Nos. 826/A and 826/K admeasuring Ac. 1-00 gts situated at Atmakur Village and Mandal of Warangal District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. There is a civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners, evidently, filed O.S. No. 31 of 2009 for permanent injunction and Interlocutory Application No. 45 of 2009 for temporary injunction on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. A perusal of the record shows that on 07-01-2009, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, granted ad-interim injunction till appearance of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (sic. 4 and 5) and adjourned the case to 22-01-2009. Though the petitioners have stated that the said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is subsisting till today, no orders of such extension have been filed. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the order of ad-interim injunction, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been interfering with their possession and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to protect their possession.
3. In my considered view, the petitioners ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court straightaway without first approaching the civil Court, which granted the ad-interim injunction, which is, allegedly, being flouted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O.P.S. Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad and Ors. : 1982 (2) ALT 161 : 1983 (1) An.W.R. 114 : AIR 1982 (A.P.) 394 (D.B.), in support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have carefully considered the said judgment and I am of the view that the same does not contain the proposition that it is not necessary for the aggrieved person to approach the civil Court for police protection.
5. A perusal of the facts in that case reveals that the order of injunction granted by the civil Court was confirmed by this Court. The party, in whose favour injunction order was granted, filed the writ petition seeking police protection. The defendant in the suit opposed the writ petition by taking the stand that the only remedy available to the plaintiff was to move the civil Court for taking proceedings in contempt against the persons, who contravened the injunction order. While repelling the said contention, the Division Bench held as:
We cannot envisage a situation where the High Court, which has confirmed the injunction order issued by the trial court is powerless to enforce its orders and be a silent spectator to its being violated with impunity and leave the parties to seek their remedy by way of contempt alone.
6. The Division Bench placed reliance on another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R. Audemma v. P. Narasimham AIR 1971 A.P. 53 (D.B.) wherein it was inter alia held as under:
If the police authorities are under a legal duty to enforce the law and the public or the citizens are entitled to seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution for discharge of such duties by the police authorities, we feel that the civil Courts also can give appropriate directions under Section 151 CPC to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders of Court.
7. When the above reproduced observations of the earlier Division Bench were sought to be given a restricted meaning by construing them as recognizing the power of the civil Court alone to pass an order for granting police aid, the Division Bench held:
Section 151 CPC reserves the inherent power of the Court. Article 226 of the Constitution goes a step further and vests extraordinary jurisdiction in the High Court of a State to issue not only a writ of Mandamus but also appropriate writs, directions or orders for the enforcement of any of the right conferred by part III and for any other purpose. As held by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Prop) Ltd. v. State of W.B. : AIR 1962 SC 1044 'any other purpose' means 'the enforcement of any legal right and the performance of any legal duty.' A legal right, of course, means any legally enforceable right. Nothing (sic) can be a higher purpose than the enforcement of the orders of the civil court and that of the High Court, which confirms or recognizes the rights of a party. By any interpretation of the provisions of CPC the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce its own orders or the orders of the civil Court cannot be curtailed. As observed by the Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 440 the High Court, in issuing directions, orders and writs under Article 226 can travel beyond the contents of the writs which are normally issued as writs of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, provided the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English Law, are not transgressed. The Supreme Court also observed that the very language of Article 226 makes it clear that in the exercise of power under Article 226, our High Courts need not feel oppressed by the procedural technicalities of the English Writ. The article empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief and also to modify the form of relief according to the exigencies of each case without being obsessed by the limitation of the prerogative writs.
(Emphasis added)
In conclusion, the Division Bench held as under:
We have therefore no hesitation in concluding that this Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the state to enforce the orders of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High Court in a civil revision petition and maintain the rule of law....
(Emphasis added)
8. As could be seen from the above judgment, the Division Bench recognized the power of this Court to grant an order for police aid for due implementation of the orders of competent courts. The Bench repeatedly referred to the fact that the order of the civil Court was confirmed by this Court. On a proper analysis of this judgment, the inevitable conclusion that emerges is that while the power of this Court to grant police aid is inherently vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in cases were the orders of injunction granted by the civil Court are confirmed by this Court, the party can straight away approach this Court for granting aid for due implementation of its order. However, in cases where the police aid is sought for implementation of the orders of the civil Courts, ordinarily the party should first approach the Court, which granted the order of injunction. It is only in the event of the civil Court rejecting such application then the aggrieved party can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In my view, such an interpretation conforms to be doctrine of alternative remedy. Though the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not inhibited by the Constitution, as a rule of prudence, this Court ordinarily would not entertain the writ petitions, unless the aggrieved party first avails the alternative remedy. Otherwise, this Court will be burdened with avoidable litigation, which, in ordinary course, is required to be dealt with by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is only in certain exceptional situations that the writ petitions filed without availing the alternative remedy are entertained. Inasmuch as the power of the civil Court to grant police aid for giving effect to its orders is well recognized in the above mentioned two Division Bench judgments, I do not find any reasons whatsoever to entertain this writ petition without the petitioner first invoking the jurisdiction of the civil Court.
9. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil Court for grant of police protection.
10. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.MP. No. 16414 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.