Allowed

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao v. Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar

Telangana HC23 Feb 2021WA/47/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned order granting police protection to a judgment debtor for enforcing a decree, dismissing it as impermissible and noting the proceedings were conducted in absence of un-notified appellants.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02.12.2020 in W.P. No. 18149 of 2019 was quashed and set aside, and liberty was granted to the respondent to seek execution of the judgment and decree as per CPC.

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 47 OF 2021

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of .the Letters Patent preferred against Order dated 0211212020 Passed in WP No 1 8149 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao, S/o. P. Ranga Rao, Aged about 76^years 2. Smt. P.Swatantra, W/o. P.tr/uralidhar Rao, aged 72^years, Household, Occ. Household

¶9

Both R/o. H.No. 1 1-15-791202, Sai Nilayam, Road No.3, Doctors Colony,^L.B. Nagar' Hyderabad

¶10

...A''ELLANTS/RE''.NDENT No.g & 12

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar, S/o. R. Girish Kumar,^{30 years,} Occ.^{Doctor Rl/o.} H.No.3-5206/13, V.V. Girinagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda^{O_,][ltroro.*r/pE',,,oNER}

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Director General of Police, Telangana^{State, Hyderabad}

¶15

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate,^{Ranga Reddy} District

¶16

Asst. Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram,^Hyderabad

¶17

Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram^{P.S., RRDistrict, Hyderabad}

¶18

ItlT.Brahma Chary, S/o, Venkatadri, Aged 51^{years, Business} ,^{No. 201148} ' Chiluka Nagar, Uppal, RR District

¶19

Palem tr/ahesh, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged 31^{years,Irilechanic, 217, Epur Village'} Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶20

Gun-duguntla Srinivas-, S/o. Shankaraiah,^{AgeQ 52 years, Businers, R/o. 594,} Road No.5, Opp. Anutex Lane, Budha Nagar, Uppal^{DepolRRDist._}

¶21

l0.Chakilam Anil Kumar, S/o. Srinivasa^{Rao, Aged 50 years, Business, R/o 1659,} Sri Krishna Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar,^Hyderabad

¶22

1 1 . Chakilam Suni[Kumar, S/o. Srinivasb^{Rao, Aged 42 years,Business, Rl/o1659'} Sri Krishna Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar,^Hyderabad

¶23

12.Danda PadmaJW/o. Veera Reddy,^{Aged 50 years, Household, Fl/o. Flat No. 68,} lr/allikarjuna Nagar. Saroor Nagar, RR Dist

¶24

S.Sanje'eva Red-dy, S/o not kndwn^{Agedabout45 years, Employee, R/o FlatNo.} lt/alikariuna Nagar. Saroor Nagar. R.R.Dist (Respondent illos.7 to 13 are-not necessary^{parties in tn," tll#fr"&lLur.}

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in supporl of the^petition, the^{High court may be pleasedto suspend the} impugned order dated O2-12-2020 in W.P.^{No. 18149 of 2019 passed by the learned} Single^{judge. pending} disposal^{of main Writ Appeal} Counsel for the Appellants:^{SMT.A. ANASUYA}

¶27

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 1: SRI RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶28

Counsel for Respondent Nos.^{2 to 6: GP FOR HOME}

¶29

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶30

| 1:

¶31

Itern No.50

¶32

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KHLI}

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶35

WRIT APPEAL^{No.47 of 2021}

¶36

JUDGMENT: @er^{the Hon'bletheChief Justice HimaKohli)}

¶37

The appellant is^{aggrieved by the order dated02'12'2020} passed by the learned Single^{Judge disposingof W.P.No.18149 of} 2019 filed by the respondent^{No'1/writpetitioner who had sought} police protection against^{them for seeking enforcementof a judgment} and decree dated26.07.2018^{passedby the learned PrincipalJunior} Civil Judge, Ranga^{Reddy Districtat L'B.Nagar,in O.S.No'32of} 2018 and for restraining^{the appellantsfrom resisting enforcement of} the saidjudgment and^decree.

¶38

By the impugned order,^{the leamed SingleJudge has disposed} of the captioned writ^{petition while grantinglibertyto the respondent} No.l/writ petitioner^{to file an appropriateapplicationbefore the police} for seeking protection^{with a further direction to the police that as and} when such an application^{is submitted,they shall extendprotection to} the respondent No.l/writ^{petitioner for enforcement of the judgment} and decree, during^{its subsistence.}

¶39

Leamed counsel for the^{appellants states that the aforesaid} order came to be^{passed in the absenceof the appellants, whowere}

¶40

Page I of3

¶41

lI/.A.No.47 oJ 2021

¶42

not even served with a notice in the writ petition. She submits that instead of seeking enforcement of the^judgrnent and decree^dated 26,07.2018 passed in O.S.No.32 of 2018 in accordance with law, the respondent No. l/writ petitioner has cleverly fited a writ petition seeking police aid, which is impermissible.

¶43

On enquiring from learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner as to whether any steps have been taken by his client so far to file an execution petition for seeking execution of the^judgment and decree dated 26.07.2018, the answer is in the negative. Learned counsel states that no steps have been taken so far.

¶44

It is rather surprising that instead of seeking appropriate legal recourse as provided for under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the^judgment and decree dated 26.07 .2018, the respondent No.l/writ petitioner has knocked at the doors of the Court by invoking the powers of judicial review, which is impermissible. Further, it is not denied by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that the impugned order came to be passed in the absence of the appellants and no service was effected on them before the said order was passed. That itself is sufficient ground to quash and set aside the impugned order.

¶45

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 passed in W.P.No. 1 8 149 of 2019 is quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the respondent No. l/writ petitioner to seek execution of the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2018 in O.S.No.32 of 2018 as per the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶46

W.A.No.47 of 2021

¶47

Page 2 of 3

¶48

7 . The appeal is accordingly allowed along with the pending

¶49

applications, if any.

¶50

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \,^- SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department, State of TelanganaSecretariat,} Hvderabad

¶52

Tfie Director General^{of Police,Telangana State,Hyderabad} g. fhe Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate' Ranga Reddy District

¶53

The Assistant Commissioner^{of Police,Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad} The Station House Officer,^{Vanasthatipuram P.S., RRDistrict, Hydelabad}

¶54

The Section Officer, Writ Filing^{Section,HighCourt for the State of Telangana} 7. The Section Officer, Writ Posting^{Section, High Courtfor the State of Telangana} B. One CC to Smt. A Anasuya Advocate IOPUCI 9. One CC to Sri Rapolu^{Bhaskar Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

10 Two CCs to GP For Home, High^{Court for the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 11 Two CD Copies lvlBC

S$-

lY.A.No.47 of 2021

Poge 3 of 3

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310212021

tlc T4 16:
t
o
26 FEB 2021
c
l) 1-r,e *
Tc!:

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

WA.No.47 of 2021

¶64

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT APPEAL

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao v. Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao v. Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Mohan Rao Patel Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Vojjela Vishnuvardhan, Nizamabad Dist and 5 Others Vs Smt. Chukka Padmavathi, Hyd and 4 Others

M.Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

R. Vijay Gopal Vs Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd.

K.Yadaiah Vs K.Jyothi and 2 Others