AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The petitioner, has filed the above writ petition with the following prayer:
“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
A. Declare that S.51(e) of CPC r/w CPC Order 21 Rule 32 r/w S.151 CPC r/w inherent Powers confers Jurisdiction to Hon'ble Executing Court in Injunction enforcement, to pass any orders, in lieu of and in addition, to attachment of property and civil prison, "to direct that the act required to be done", after hearing parties and considering material before it.
B. Declare that Police department is bound by Hon'ble Court decrees which have attained finality and cannot insist on separate order from Hon'ble Courts for Police assistance/Protection in case of Perpetual Injunction violation.
C. Grant liberty to Petitioner to approach Hon'ble Executing Court with any additional reliefs as necessary.
D. Direct SHO, Talakondapally PS, RangaReddy district, Telangana to act studiously on complaints of violation of Rule of Law, against formation of UnConstitutional self-styled adjudicatory bodies, and their attempt to override Judgments of Hon'ble Sr Civil Judge Court, Hon'ble District Court and Hon'ble High Court and protect Majesty of Honourable Courts effectively, regarding petitioner's land. When appropriate, counsel violators of Rule of law.
E. Direct SHO, Talakondapally PS, Ranga Reddy district, Telangana to arrange for assessment of Mental Health Condition and provide mental healthcare to Judgment debtor and his agents, who violate Court Injunction order and threaten to commit suicide, u/s 2(s) r/w s.18 r/w s.100 (1)(b) r/w s.105 r/w s.115 of The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and to prevent any untoward incident, like Suicide on the Petitioner land, as far as possible”.
The Registry has returned the above W.P.(SR) on 06.05.2026 with the following objection:
“1.Please clarify, how the Petitioner sought different reliefs in main prayer.
2.Please file relevant document to declare that S.51(c) [sic] of CPC r/w CPC order Rule 32 r/w 151 CPC and u/s 2(s) r/w s.18 r/w s.100 (1)(b) r/w s.105 r/w s.115 as per prayer”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the above W.P.(SR) on 09.05.2026 with the following endorsement:
“1.This WP is filed to declare the Jurisdiction of Execution Court. First prayer is the main prayer. Other prayers are consequential and have been prayed since they are withdrawn in EP for maintainability of EP in consonance with EP Court order. If those prayers are not mentioned in WP it will result in abandonment.
2.S.51(e) & OR21 R32 are already extracted in Page No. 11 & 12. Even otherwise CPC is available and widely used by Hon'ble Courts. S.151 CPC is general power and generally used. No separate extracts are necessary nor advisable.
Please place the matter before Hon'ble Court is registry is not satisfied with my answer. Since it is a matter related to interpretation of law and declaration of law, it is believed to be placed before Hon'ble first Court.”
The matter has been placed before this Court for orders on maintainability.
We have heard Mr. T.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the documents placed on record and have considered the averments and the submissions made.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 Gts in Sy. No.572 of Gattuippalapally Village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner's title was declared by the trial Court in O.S.No.259 of 2009, which decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.40 of 2019. The Second Appeal, S.A.No.121 of 2021, was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, thereby rendering the decree of the trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court final. A decree of perpetual injunction was also granted against respondent No.3, Shri Dubba Isaac. Thereafter, alleging disobedience of the said decree, the petitioner instituted E.P.No.9 of 2025 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.
Pursuant thereto, by endorsement dated 26.03.2026, the Executing Court returned the Execution Petition observing that the reliefs sought, including directions to the police, auction of property and assessment of the mental health of the judgment debtors, were beyond the scope of execution under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which, according to the Executing Court, is confined to the modes of execution contemplated thereunder. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration regarding the scope of the Executing Court's jurisdiction and consequential directions to the police.
The writ petition was returned by the Registry of this Court and represented by the learned counsel with the endorsements as noted hereinabove. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following submissions:
That the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, as the controversy raises pure questions of law concerning the scope and ambit of Section 51(e) and Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the CPC. It was further contended that the Executing Court had erroneously declined jurisdiction by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, warranting interference by this Court by issuance of a mandamus as sought by the petitioner.
ii) That the petitioner is not seeking any legislative exercise by this Court, but only a declaration as to the true scope of the existing provisions of Section 51(e) and Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC. According to the petitioner, the Executing Court possesses sufficient power to pass appropriate orders to secure effective enforcement of an injunction decree, and the contrary view taken by the Executing Court is contrary to the statutory scheme.
iii) That the police authorities are under a legal obligation to give effect to decrees and orders passed by competent civil courts and cannot insist upon a separate order directing police aid.
iv) That the judgment debtors had threatened to commit suicide on the petitioner's property and to resort to violence against the petitioner's representatives, necessitating immediate preventive action by the police authorities. It was contended that the relief sought with reference to the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is only preventive and ancillary in nature, intended to avert any untoward incident and to secure effective implementation of the decree. According to the petitioner, such relief is merely consequential to the principal relief sought in the writ petition.
That the Executing Court has adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC in holding that its powers are confined to attachment of property and civil imprisonment. It was further submitted that the petitioner seeks only a declaration regarding the true scope of the said provisions and not any direction compelling the Executing Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner.
vi) That effective enforcement of judicial decrees is integral to the rule of law and the administration of justice, and that the failure to effectively enforce decrees undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system. It was, therefore, urged that this Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to clarify the legal position by issuing the declarations and grant the reliefs sought.
vii) That the liberty sought under prayer (c) is only ancillary to the principal relief and is intended to enable the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for such further reliefs as may become necessary during the execution proceedings for effective enforcement of the decree.
viii) That the petitioner has no equally efficacious alternative remedy, as the Execution Petition has been returned by the Executing Court. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner is justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for clarification of the legal position regarding the jurisdiction of the Executing Court and for consequential directions.
ix) That the pleadings in the writ petition are duly supported by the judgments and decrees passed in the civil proceedings, the orders in the execution proceedings, the relevant judicial precedents, and the representations made to the police authorities. It was contended that the said material establishes the petitioner's title, the subsistence of the decree of perpetual injunction, the alleged violation thereof by the judgment debtors, the return of the Execution Petition, and the inaction of the police authorities.
Consideration by this Court
The petitioner's principal prayer (Prayer 'A') seeks a declaration as to the scope of Section 51(e) and Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, by contending that the Executing Court possesses powers beyond the modes of execution contemplated therein. The grievance of the petitioner essentially arises from the view taken by the Executing Court while returning the Execution Petition on the ground that the reliefs sought were beyond the scope of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. In our considered opinion, the order of the Executing Court being a judicial order, the correctness or otherwise of the view taken therein cannot be examined in a writ petition seeking a declaratory relief of the present nature.
It is pertinent to note that though the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, it cannot be invoked to obtain a declaration regarding the interpretation of a statutory provision in order to circumvent the remedies available against a judicial order passed by a competent civil Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court returning the Execution Petition, it is open to pursue such remedy as may be available under the CPC. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in respect of the said relief.
Further, prayer 'B' seeks a declaration that the police authorities are bound to enforce the decree passed by the competent civil Court and cannot insist upon a separate order for extending police assistance. However, the grievance of the petitioner, arises in the course of execution of a civil decree and is intrinsically connected with the proceedings before the Executing Court. Whether police assistance is required for effective implementation of a decree and the manner in which such assistance is to be secured are matters which fall within the ambit of the execution proceedings and are to be considered by the competent civil Court in accordance with law.
In the present case, the petitioner seeks a declaration of the legal position under Article 226 without first working out the remedies available in the execution proceedings or against the order returning the Execution Petition. In our view, such a declaratory relief, divorced from any independent public law cause of action, cannot be granted in the present writ proceedings.
It is to be noted that prayer 'E' seeks a direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) to arrange for assessment of the mental health of the judgment debtor and his agents under the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said relief is wholly extraneous to the principal controversy arising out of the execution of a civil decree and does not arise for consideration or fall within the scope of the controversy involved in the execution of the decree.
The petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any statutory duty cast upon the SHO under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to undertake or facilitate such an assessment in the manner sought. If the petitioner apprehends any breach of peace or commission of a cognizable offence, it is always open to avail such remedies as are available in law before the competent authorities. However, a writ of mandamus in the terms prayed for cannot be issued in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is to be noted that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court without availing the remedy available against the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Executing Court returning the Execution Petition. Merely because the Executing Court declined to entertain the reliefs sought does not, by itself, furnish a ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has neither availed nor demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the statutory remedy available in law. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting interference, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the W.P.(SR)No.24654 of 2026 is not maintainable. The prayers sought by the petitioner are outside the scope of a writ of mandamus and involve the interpretation and possible amendment of the CPC. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the CPC to challenge the order of the Executing Court. The reliefs regarding the mental health of the judgment debtors are extraneous and misconceived.
Accordingly, the objections raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of the present Writ Petition are upheld. The registration of W.P.(SR) No.24654 of 2026 is refused.