ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “To issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in not providing the police protection in pursuance of the representation dated 26.11.22020 which is made as per the orders passed in I.A. No.541/2020 in I.A. No.514/2020 in O.S. No.512/2020 by the Hon’ble Sub-Divisional and Special Asst. Agent to the Government Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam dated 23/11/2020 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violation of principles of natural justice.” 2. Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed on account of the inaction of respondent No.4, the Station House Officer, Chunchupalli Police Station, in providing police protection as directed in I.A. No.541 of 2020 in I.A. No.514 of 2020 in O.S. No.512 of 2020, by the Special Assistant Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam. Despite the petitioner having made a representation dated 26.11.2020 to the police authorities, no action was taken. 4. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently contends that the Court, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, had granted an interim injunction together with a direction for police protection. Pursuant thereto, a representation was duly submitted to the police authorities requesting enforcement of the said direction. However, as the police failed to act, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. Counsel further submits that, during the pendency of this petition, the original suit itself has been decreed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner now seeks a direction to the police to provide protection so as to enable effective implementation of the decree. In support of this plea, reliance is placed upon the judgments in Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham, AIR 1971 A.P. 53 and Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S. Santhoshnagar, AIR 1982 A.P. 394 , wherein it was held that when police authorities fail to discharge their statutory duties, an aggrieved party may invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek appropriate directions to the police. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, admittedly, the suit in question has been decreed. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, admittedly, the suit in question has been decreed. Since the relief presently sought is for enforcement of an interim injunction order, which has already merged with the final decree, the petitioner ought to pursue execution proceedings before the competent forum. At this stage, seeking enforcement of an interim order would be rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have perused the materials on record. 7. The petitioners seek a direction to the police to provide protection in accordance with the order passed in I.A. No.541 of 2020. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the said order is extracted below: “To The Station House Officer, P.S. Chunchupalli, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. You are hereby directed to give necessary police protection to the petitioner/plaintiff and take necessary steps to restrain the respondents/defendants, their henchmen, servants, agents, or anyone acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the petitioners/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property until further orders. Schedule of Property: Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy. No.137/1/E, 137/2/A, situated at Sainikpuri Colony, Near Attala Factory, Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayat, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, bounded as follows: East: Attala Factory and house of Kishore Kumar West: Land of Bhukya Bhadri and Kurma Pedda Mallaiah North: Land of Boda Mangamma South: Land of Dondapati Kanakatara and plaintiffs’ remaining land.” 8. The petitioners claim to have submitted a representation dated 26.11.2020 to the police authorities, the material portion of which is reproduced herein: “To The respected Circle Inspector, Laxmidevipally P.S. Laxmidevipaly, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District. Sir, Sub: Request to take necessary action as per the Court Orders against the Rajakula (Washermen) who illegally trespassed into our Patta agricultural lands on 26.11.2020 in Survey No.137/2A and 137/1E to an extent of Ac.9.29 Guntas (Nine Acres Twenty Nine Guntas) and Ac.08.18 Guntas (Eight Acres Eighteen Guntas) which are in the records situated at Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayathi, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and removed corn crop by marking and affixed the Tenant and provide protection to us - Reg. ........ We, 1. Kalluru Mallesh 2. ........ We, 1. Kalluru Mallesh 2. Kalluri Chandramohan @ Mogili Sons of Kalluri Sanjeeva Rao R/o N.K. Nagar, submits that the land in Survey No.137/2A and 137/1E to an extnt of Ac.9.29 Guntas (Nine Acres Twenty Nine Guntas) and Ac.08.18 Guntas (Eight Acres Eighteen Guntas) which are in the records situated at Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayathi, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, is continuing on the name of Kalluri Sanjeeva Rao in the revenue records. The said land is in our possession since 1954 and we are having rights over the said land on hereditary basis. On 07.11.2020 the Rajakula (Washermen) about 100 to 150 ladies and gents under the leadership of Katala Vasanta Rao, Chitikena Bhaskar Rao, Bapanapelli Sarvesh, Marepalli Ravi, Kasamkota Sujatha, Bhupalli Purnachander Rao and Bapanapalli Sattemma destroyed the boundary and illegally trespassed into our land and threatened us by saying they will kill us and they injured to us and thrown us, then we approached to the Mobile Court at Byhadrachalam by filing a Suit against the Rajakula (Washermen) then the said course passed injunction Order and police protection order in our favour vide O.S. No.512 of 2020. On 26.11.2020 about 100 to 150 persons illegally trespassed into our land, marked the land and tried to affix the tenants. Hence, we are requesting you to kindly take necessary action against above said Rajakula (Washermen) persons as per the Bhadrachalam Mobile Court Orders and provide protection to the below mentioned our land. Boundaries of Schedule Property: East: Paper Factory and House of Kishore West: Agricultural Land of Bhukya Bhadri and Kurma Pedda Mallaiah North: Land of Boda Mangamma South: Lands of Dondapati Kanakatara and our own lands Hence, we request you to kindly remove the tents affixed by the Rajakula (Washermen) on the above said shown boundary land and evict them from the above and to take necessary action against them by providing protection to us and to our land as per the Court Orders and also permit us to make boundary to our own land. Thanking you Yours faithfully 1. Sd/- (Kalluri Mallesh) 2. Sd/- H. No. 5-1-175, N.K. Nagar, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Cell No.  9866777818.” 9. The afore noted record demonstrates that in I.A. No.514 of 2020, the civil court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Sd/- (Kalluri Mallesh) 2. Sd/- H. No. 5-1-175, N.K. Nagar, Chunchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Cell No.  9866777818.” 9. The afore noted record demonstrates that in I.A. No.514 of 2020, the civil court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In I.A. No.541 of 2020, the Station House Officer was directed to afford police protection to the petitioners to secure compliance with the injunction. It is thus evident that the court intended to safeguard the petitioners’ possession by directing the police to prevent unlawful interference. 10. The petitioners’ representation dated 26.11.2020 reiterates that large numbers of individuals encroached upon their land, dispossessed them, and attempted to erect tents. However, on a perusal of the pleadings in O.S. No.512 of 2020, it is seen that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the petitioners had referred to an incident dated 02.11.2020, alleging interference by the defendants, followed by a complaint lodged before respondent No.4 on 07.11.2020. Notably, the plaint does not refer to the incidents of 07.11.2020 or 26.11.2020 regarding alleged mass encroachment or erection of tents, which are highlighted in the police representation. This inconsistency in pleadings indicates that the petitioners have not approached either the civil court or the police with candour. It is well-settled that a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands. (Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 ). The contradictions in the petitioners’ narrative undermine the bona fides of their claim. 11. Viewed from another angle, the grievance of the petitioners essentially relates to the alleged disobedience of an interim injunction by the defendants. In such cases, the appropriate statutory remedy lies under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ), which empowers the court to punish for breach of injunction orders. This position has been consistently upheld. The Hon’ble Suprme Court in Mohd. Abdul Wahid v. State of Telangana, (2019) 14 SCC 9 categorically held that directions under Article 226 cannot be used to grant reliefs which properly fall within the jurisdiction of the executing court. This position has been consistently upheld. The Hon’ble Suprme Court in Mohd. Abdul Wahid v. State of Telangana, (2019) 14 SCC 9 categorically held that directions under Article 226 cannot be used to grant reliefs which properly fall within the jurisdiction of the executing court. Further a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.334 of 2023 (decided on 16.03.2023), in reiteration held that when an interim injunction is violated, the proper and effective remedy is to move the civil court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC . Therefore in this legal position, resorting to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the remedy before the executing court is impermissible, absent exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. 12. Moreover, the relief sought in the writ petition and the police representation includes eviction of persons in occupation and restoration of possession. Such reliefs travel beyond the scope of the interim injunction and police protection order, which were limited to preventing interference with the petitioners’ possession. Directing the police to dispossess others and restore possession would, in effect, amount to execution of a decree, which can only be sought in execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC . Police protection orders are not intended to operate as instruments for recovery of possession (K.K. Dewan v. District Magistrate, Chandigarh, AIR 1982 P&H 482). 13. In the circumstances, the conduct of the police in not acceding to such demands, which fall outside the scope of the interim order, cannot therefore be faulted. The petitioners’ contention that the police failed to act upon their representation is without merit. 14. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is devoid of merit. Since the suit in O.S. No.512 of 2020 has already been decreed, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue execution proceedings before the competent civil court under Order XXI CPC . The executing court shall deal with any such application strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in this order. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies in execution of the suit decree. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.