Dismissed

Boddeda Narayana Babji v. The Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC4 Dec 2006WP/25178/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought police protection against a third respondent continuing to interfere with his property despite a permanent injunction. The court noted a pending contempt case regarding the same grievance and observed the statutory remedy under CPC. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies under CPC.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to pursue appropriate remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Boddeda Narayana Babji Vs The Commissioner of Police — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 25178 of 2006.

¶3

DATED: 4-12-2006

¶4

Between: Boddeda Narayana Babji. …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents.

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

W.P.No. 25178 of 2006.

¶7

Oral order:

¶8

In O.S.No. 1366 of 2005 on the file of the learned

¶9

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner asserts that he obtained a permanent injunction against the 3^rd respondent and his agents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of Ac.3-00 cts. in Sy.No.52/1-B1, Block No.4, Waltair Ward No.2 situated at Peda Waltair. Despite the same, the 3^rd respondent was continuing to interfere with the petitioner’s property and contrary to the decree of injunction. The petitioner, thereupon, made a complaint to the 2^nd respondent-Police on 16-5-2006. There being no action, he filed W.P.No.10626 of 2006. By an interim order dated 30-5-2006, in the said writ petition, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint to register the case if the contents set out a cognizable offence. Despite the order of this Court, the 2^nd respondent did not act upon the interim direction. Thereupon the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1220 of 2006 against the respondents in Writ Petition No. 10626 of 2006 alleging contumacious conduct. The said contempt case is stated to have been admitted and is pending adjudication.

¶10

As the 3^rd respondent is continuously interfering with the petitioner’s right to possession and enjoyment of the property, despite the injunction order granted by the Civil Court, the petitioner again filed

¶11

this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection for the transgression by the 3^rd respondent of the order of injunction. In respect of such a grievance, he has a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for violation by the 3^rd respondent and the transgression of the order of injunction. In the circumstances and in the context of the fact that Contempt Case No.1220 of 2006 is already pending before this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the C.P.C.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶13

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 4^th December, 2006. GRR/IBL

Boddeda Narayana Babji v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddeda Narayana Babji v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Farzana Begum, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad represented by its

M/s. Saraswathi Filling Centre, Dealer of Ibp Company Ltd., Vs The Station House Officer, Huzurnagar Police Station

Bura Narender Goud, Vs Station House Officer

B. Balaraja Nayak, Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police

Gokaraiah, Vs The Executive Director, (Collector)

K.Bangar Raju, Vs the Commissioner of Endowments