APHC010364012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER |o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 848 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order in W.P.No. 9769/25, dt A.P. 17-04-2025 on the file of the High Court of Between: 1. Chennamasetti Adi Lakshumma, W/o. Late. Venkataramana, Aged 78 years, Occ: Cultivation. R/o. Chennamachettypalli village, Sundupalli Mandal, Peddbalijapalli Post Annamayya District. 2. Chennamasetti Chendraiah, S/o. Occ: Cultivation, Late. Narasaiah Aged 84 years, R/o. Chennamachettypalli village, Mandal, Peddbalijapalli Post, Annamayya District. Sundupalli 3. Chennamasetty Krishna, S/o. Late. Narasaiah Aged 68 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Chennamachettypalli village, Sundupalli Mandal, Peddbalijapalli Post, Annamayya District. ...Petitioners AND 1. Chennamsetti Narayana, S/o. Venkatappa Aged Cultivation, And Mandal Annamayya District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 84 years, Occ: R/o. Chinnamasettipalli village, H/o. T.Sundupalli village 3. The Director General of Police, A.P.Police Head Quarter, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District at Rayachoti. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Annamayya District. The Inspector of Police, at Rayachoti Annamayya District. The Station House Officer, T.Sundupalli Police Station, Annamayya District. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Chennamasetti Ramanjaneyulu Sairam, @ S/o. Venkataramana, Aged 58 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Chennamachettypalli village Sundupalli Mandal, Peddbalijapalli Post, Annamayya District. A 9. Govindu Ramanjulamma, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah Aged 56 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Gollapallineeelamvandlapalli village, G.Reddyvaripalli Panchyat, Annamaiah District. ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of the orders passed in W.P.No. 9769 of 2025, dt. 17-04-2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. V. S. K. CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI PALA KARTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following Judgment: Bench Sr.No:-15 [3483] APHC010364012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 848 of 2025 ...Appellants Chennamasetti Adi Lakshumma and others Vs. ...Respondents Chennamsetti Narayana and others ********** Mr. P. V. S. K. Chakravarthy Advocate for Appellants GP for Home Mr. Pala Karthi Kiran Advocates for Respondents : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CORAM RESERVED ON : 01.08.2025 S’ PRONOUNCED ON : Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 17.04.2025, passed in W.P.No.9769 of 2025, whereby the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein directed respondent No.6 i.e. the Station House Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner and ensure that the judgment and order passed in O.S.No.147 of 2004 was complied with in letter and spirit. The case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was 2. that he had filed an O.S.No.147 of 2004 which was decreed on 31.03.2008 and an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.848 of 2025 the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. An appeal is stated to have been preferred against the judgment and decree vide A.S.No.62 of 2008 which came to be dismissed on 21.06.2017. The petitioner had claimed that he was about 84 years old and submitted a representation, dated 19.03.2025, to respondent Nos.1 to 6 therein for taking necessary steps for implementation of the orders of the Court which was not considered. It was, in that backdrop, that while allowing the writ petition, directions were issued to consider the representation of the petitioner and to ensure that the order in O.S.No.147 of 2004 was complied in letter and spirit. The case of the appellants in the present writ appeal is that the learned single Judge ought not to have issued the directions impugned inasmuch as a Civil Second Appeal had already been preferred by them and was pending before this Court. It is, however, not the case of the appellants that there has been any order passed in the Civil Second Appeal staying the 3. judgment and decree in question. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that law did not warrant implementation of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Courts through exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 4. Constitution of India. He would further submit that Civil Courts could give appropriate directions under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if it was necessary so to be given to the aggrieved party for the due and proper implementation of the orders of the Court. 3 HCJ & RCJ WA No.848 of 2025 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. While it is true that the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a remedy for executing decrees passed by the Civil Courts and while a Civil Court may also have the power to pass orders under Section 151 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of law, yet the issue as to whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can enforce the orders passed by the Civil Courts or not is also no longer res Integra. 6. In P. R. Murlidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Radar and others^ it was held thus; “17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the (2006) 4 see 501 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.848 of 2025 Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. ” in the instant case, had it been a stage where the right of the petitioner to remain in possession had not been conclusively determined, certainly the direction as was passed by the learned single Judge would be untenable. On the contrary, in the instant case, not only was the decree passed in favour of the petitioner injuncting the respondents in the civil suit, the appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner, but the said judgment and decree has even subsequently been upheld when Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.62 of 2008 came to be dismissed by the first Appellate Court. 7. an 8. The mere fact that there is a Civil Second Appeal pending would not be an impediment to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner felt threatened that despite there being a decree by the Civil Court, the judgment debtor was bent upon flouting the same. 9. In those circumstances, in our opinion, the directions issued by the learned single Judge for consideration of the representation as also for ensuring that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.147 of 2004 be complied with in letter and spirit cannot be said to be in any manner legally unsustainable. 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.848 of 2025 10. We find no merit in the present writ appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri P. V. S. K. Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Pala Karthi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Cnr I • HIGH COURT DATED:08/10/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 848 OF 2025 I <i OCT 2025 I 5^>sCiirr»ntSectijpX* o DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS