APHC010179502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9149/2026 Between: 1.YADAVALLI PARVATHI,, W/O. Y.PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC HOUSE-WIFE, R/O. POONDIA VILLAGE, BAPATIA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.522113 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522503 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA.522101 4.THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER DSP, CHIRALA SUB- DIVISION, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VETAPALEAM POLICE STATION, VETAPALEM, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6.YADAVALLI SIVA PARVATHI, W/O.VENKATA RAGHAVA RAO AGED 37 YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE, R/O.KONDLAGUNTA RAMAKOTI VEEDHI, PANDILLAPALLI, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. I 7.NIDAMANURI RAMANAMMA, W/O.MALAKONDAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. KONDLAGUNTA RAMAKOTI VEEDHI, PANDILLAPALLI, 2 VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.522101 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.JHANSI GUDURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction the Respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 herein in not providing Police aid / Protection to the Court Amin / Process Server for executing the delivery warrant issued by the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala in E.P. No. 50 of 2025 in O.S. No. 92 of 2015 inter alia of an extent of 234 Sq. Yards of site surrounded by compound wall with zinc sheet shed in S.No. 49, present Bapatia District, old Prakasam District, Chirala Sub-District, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Bapatia District within the specific boundaries East Pinajala Chandrasekhara Vara Prasada Rao and others site. South Kama Bhaskara Rao and others. West Panchayath Bazar, North Yadavalli Radhakrishna Murthy, which inaction is illegal, arbitrary, violation of orders of the Execution Court and thereby depriving my right to have the fruits of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 92 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala and consequently direct the Respondents to implement the orders passed in E.A.No. 43 of 2025 (filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, to direct the SHO, Vetapalem, 5th respondent herein to provide police aid to Court Amin to remove the obstruction and hand over the physical possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Decree Holder), E.A.No.77 of 2025 (filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, in this application direction is sought to the Respondent No.4 herein) and E.A.No.148 of 2025 (filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 98 R/w Section 151 of CPC, in this application direction is sought to the Respondent No.3) in E.P.No. 50 of 2025 in O.S.No.92 of 2015, same were allowed vide Orders Dated 29.05.2025, 23.07.2025 and 25.10.2025 respectively and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3 3. Smt. Jhansi Guduru, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, having obtained a lawful decree of possession in O.S.No.92 of 2015, is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, owing to the persistent and contumacious inaction of Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5. Despite categorical judicial directions in E.A.Nos.43, 77, and 148 of 2025, coupled with repeated issuance of delivery warrants, the statutory authorities have abdicated their bounden duty to render police assistance to the Court Amin. Such dereliction not only frustrates the solemn decree dated 28.11.2024 but also strikes at the very root of judicial efficacy, rendering nugatory the execution process envisaged under Order XXI of ‘the C.P.C.’ The Petitioner, though armed with a decree and successive orders, continues to be unlawfully dispossessed, her entitlement thwarted by the recalcitrance of the Judgment Debtors and the apathy of the police machinery. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the conduct of Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5 amounts to a flagrant violation of constitutional and statutory obligations. The Execution Court, in its wisdom, has repeatedly directed the provision of police aid, recognizing the obstructions and threats posed by the Judgment Debtors. Yet, the Respondents have deliberately failed to act, thereby facilitating continued illegal occupation of the Suit Schedule Property. Such inaction is not merely administrative indifference but constitutes contemptuous disregard of judicial orders, undermining the majesty of law and eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system. 4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has endured humiliation, physical assault upon her husband, and repeated indignities, all documented in the reports of the Court Amin, yet the Respondents remain unmoved. 5. In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding Respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5 to forthwith provide requisite police aid and protection to the Court Amin for execution of the delivery warrant in E.P.No.50 of 2025. The Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy, and the Respondents’ inaction has deprived her of the fruits of a hard-earned decree. The intervention of this Court is imperative to uphold the sanctity of judicial orders, vindicate the rule of law, and ensure that decrees of competent civil courts do not remain illusory. Justice demands that the Petitioner be placed in possession of the Suit Schedule Property without further delay, lest the authority of the Court be reduced to a mere formality. 6. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the answering Respondents, functioning under the aegis of the State, submit that the allegations of deliberate inaction are unfounded and misconceived. The police authorities have at all times acted bona fide, in discharge of their statutory obligations to preserve public order and prevent escalation of conflict. It is a matter of record that the decree in O.S.No.92 of 2015 was passed by the competent civil court, and execution proceedings were initiated. However, the execution process encountered 5 resistance at the site, including threats of self-harm and violent obstruction by the judgment debtors. In such circumstances, the police were compelled to exercise restraint to avert breach of peace and safeguard lives. The Respondents, not being parties to the civil litigation, cannot be compelled to mechanically enforce decrees without due regard to prevailing law and order exigencies. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the directions issued in E.A.Nos.43, 77, and 148 of 2025 were duly acknowledged, and on certain occasions personnel were deployed to assist the Court Amin. Yet, owing to acute shortage of staff, simultaneous bandobust duties, and emergent law and order responsibilities, adequate force could not be spared. The allegation of wilful refusal to receive court orders is categorically denied. The Respondents have consistently endeavoured to balance the dual imperatives of assisting the civil court and maintaining public tranquillity. Execution of decrees involving known resistance requires careful coordination, planning, and sufficient deployment, lest the enforcement itself precipitate disorder. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit as against the Police Respondents. The Respondents have acted in good faith, within the bounds of law, and cannot be castigated for prioritizing urgent public safety obligations over civil execution duties in moments of crisis. The Petitioner’s grievance, though 6 sympathetic, arises from circumstances beyond the immediate control of the police authorities. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader furthermore submits that the Respondent Police are ready to comply with the directions give by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division). It is therefore urged that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition as against Respondent Nos.3 to 5. 10. It is apposite to mention the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the judgment dated 28.11.2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2015 at paragraph No.13 it is mentioned about the conduct of Respondent Nos.6 & 7 as under: “… The DW.1 and DW.2 themselves admitted that presently they filed Sec.498-A IPC cases against the plaintiff, plaintiff’s husband and plaintiff’s son. More over this Court observed the conduct of DW.1 and DW.2 at the time of giving evidence by DW.1 and DW.2 at the time of trial. At the time of giving evidence by DW.1 and DW.2 in the Court. The plaintiff and her husband are also present in the open Court, after giving evidence by DW.1 and DW.2 they used most filthy language against the plaintiff and her husband, even though the Court admonished DW.1 and DW.2 they never stopped abusing the plaintiff and her husband in open court…” 11. The Petitioner got a decree. It is a clear case of age old saying that it is very easy to get a decree, whereas it is very difficult to realize the fruits of decree. Disgruntled judgment debtors may put forth all possible inconvenience 7 or in-action to decree holder in executing the decree or realizing the fruits of th decree. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to provide necessary police aid or protection to the Court Amin or process server for executing the delivery warrant issued by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chirala in E.P.No.50 of 2025 in O.S.No.92 of 2015 in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., 234 Sq. Yards of site surrounded by compound wall with zinc sheet shed in S.No.49, present Bapatla District, old Prakasam District, Chirala Sub-District, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Bapatla District. In case if any of the judgment debtors or their followers obstruct the public servant of the Court, staff of the Court or police officials in discharging the execution of the orders issued by the learned Civil Court, the Police are at liberty to register appropriate cases against the offenders. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.04.2026 VTS