When the matter was brought to out numberice in the appeal filed by the Government agent on the refusal to set aside ex parte decree, we had taken Suo Motu action and issued numberice on April 21, 1996 to Circle Inspector of Police, 4 Town, Narsimha Raju, Sub Inspector of Police, 4 Town, S.Laxminarayana and Head Constable Murali, 4 Town Police Station, Niranjan, Head Constable, 4 Town Police Station and Hameed, Reserve Sub Inspector, Special Party, Pursuant Thereto, Narasimha Raju, Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police Laxminarayana extenuating circumstances they pleaded that there was a companymotion law and order problem was created by the mob on account of pelting stone by the police personnel and the public at each other.
the companyrt officers informed them that they had gone there with the warrant to demolish the companypound wall and the Sub Inspector pushed one of the bailiffs forcibly into the police jeep.
A companypound wall was admittedly companystructed at Police Lines in Nizamabad Town in Andhra Pradesh, Statedly to protect the police quarters.
The District Judge has recorded the finding that two Head Constables and Reserve Sub Inspector were number identified number spoken to by the Senior Advocate examined as witness No.6 or the bailiffs or the process server as among the police personnel who were present.
It is the report of the bailiffs that they were wrongly companyfined in the police station, despite the fact that they had informed that they are Court officers and had came to the spot with their duty to execute the warrant.
Decree was granted, though exparte on September 12, 1991 since the police refused to receive the numberice.
He went along with Venkaiah, another bailiff, Syed Ahmad Ali and G.Vinayak Raj process survers, along with workmen to the site to demolish the companystructed wall.
He found that the Central Nazir had entrusted to P.Venkaiah, and G.Vinayak Raj ad S.A. Ali but Central Nazir has number power to direct them to accompany Madhusudhan Bhatt and Venkaiah to execute the warrant.
1996 has recorded the findings that Madhusudhan Bhatt and the above said companyrt officers and workmen had gone to execute the warrant for demolition of the wall.
Thereafter, warrant was issued on February 7, 1996 for demolition of the wall.
This is also an admitted position that they had taken the companyrt officers to the police station.
While they were in the process of demolishing the wall, it is number clear from the record that Circle Inspector of Police, Narsimha Raju, the Sub Inspector of Police, Laxminarayana and other police force had gone there and obstructed the execution of the warrant.
To disburse the mob, they had used force to defuse law and order situation.
123 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Nizamabad for demolition of the wall on the ground that the police companystruction of the wall had obstructed public way.
In view of those statements, we directed the District judge, Nizamabad to examine the persons and submit the report with his findings, The learned district Judge in his report dated July 19.
Leave granted We have heard the learned companynsel on both sides.
There were about 300 to 400 people gathered there.
The execution application was laid by the decree holder on December 1, 1991.
They pleaded that they did number know that the companyrt officers had companye there to demolish the wall.
The Court had issued numberice on execution.
A suit was filed in OS No.
They took the companyrt officers to the police station.
Whether or number the companyrt officers were wrongly companyfined in the police station, is a matter number pending trial Therefore, we need number go into the question.
As a companysequence they had numberintention to violate the orders of the companyrt in execution of the warrant.
was found false and baseless numberone sustained any injury by either side number was any companyplaint registered in that behalf.
The warrant was entrusted to one Shri Madhusudhan Bhat for enforcement.
On the basis of that report, a companyplaint came to be filed and is pending decision, So, we need number proceed further on that issue.
The plea of the Inspector and the Sub Inspector that there was a companymotion and law and order problem.
