For violation injunction order also urgent action is required to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was obtained in by the petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4. In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC. Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as complained by this petitioner. – WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE

For violation injunction order also urgent action is required to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was obtained in by the petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4. In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC. Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as complained by this petitioner. – WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE

AP HIGH COURT

Main Number WP 12721/2020 SR Number WPSR 15938/2020
Petitioner MANJUNATHA Respondent The State of Andhra Pradesh
Petitioner Advocate A PADMA Respondent Advocate GP FOR HOME
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020

ORDER:

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

filed claiming the following relief:-

“to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature

of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent

though respondents 3 and 4 and their men are creating problems

in the land of petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in

Sy.No.206/E/3 which is situated at Gudibanda Village,

Ananthapuram District and trying to manhandle the petitioner

and for not taking the decision on the representation of

petitioner, as illegal, improper and arbitrary and to pass such

other order.”

  1. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner’s father Kari

Lingappa is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in

Sy.No.206/E/3, which is situated at Gudibanda Village,

Ananthapuram District. He executed a registered gift deed on

14.06.2019 in favour of his grandchildren who are the minor sons of

petitioner herein by name Amruth Gowd, aged about 8 years and

Bhanu Prakash, aged about 6 years. Pattadar pass book and title

deed were also obtained by Khata No.3013 and in 1-B register also

the petitioner’s name was mutated and her name was also amended

in Adangals. Thus, on behalf of her minor sons the petitioner is

continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising

groundnut crop every year.

  1. While the matter stood thus, respondents 3 and 4 along with

some other persons made an attempt to interfere with the petitioner’s

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and immediately

the petitioner made complaints to the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2019,

2

18.11.2019 and in the month of June, 2020 to register a crime

against the respondents 3 and 4 complaining their illegal interference

with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property, but no

action was taken by the 2nd respondent so far.

  1. Having no other option the petitioner approached the Civil

Court by filing O.S.No.36/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Madakasira, Ananthapuram District, she filed an application under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020

for grant of interim injunction and obtained interim injunction order

dated 13.03.2020 restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

petitioner over the subject property during pendency of the suit.

However, respondents 3 and 4 have violated the injunction order

granted by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira on 13.03.2020 and

they are still trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner approached this

Court requesting to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary

police protection to implement the injunction order passed by the

learned Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District.

  1. During the course of hearing, Smt.Akella Padma, the learned

counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the

petition, while contending that the failure of respondent police to

provide necessary protection to the petitioner to cultivate her land is

nothing but failure to discharge their public duty and sought for Writ

of Mandamus as claimed.

  1. Whereas learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that

an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the

Civil Court by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and

3

this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India and requested to pass appropriate

order.

  1. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was

obtained in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020 on 13.03.2020 by the

petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4.

In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land,

despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of

injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be

enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC.

Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an

application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3

and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as

complained by this petitioner. When an efficacious remedy is

available elsewhere, this Court would normally will not entertain

these types of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India or even to provide police protection.

  1. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the view that it is appropriate

to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing an

application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC to take appropriate action

against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation of injunction order

dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Madakasira, Ananthapuram District in I.A.No.88/2020 in

O.S.No.36/2020 after making necessary enquiry.

  1. The only difficulty expressed by the counsel for petitioner is

that the Courts are not entertaining any applications in view of the

instructions issued by this Court from time to time. No doubt, this

4

Court issued directions from time to time instructing the judicial

officers. For violation injunction order also urgent action is required

to be taken against the violators. Therefore, the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District is directed to entertain

the application, if any, filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule

2-A CPC and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

  1. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.


JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 24.08.2020

Note: Furnish CC by 26.08.2020

B/o.

IS

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020

Date: 24.08.2020

IS