Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1089 (AP)

Kanneboina Negeshwar Rao v. Potla Sooramma

2006-09-11

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
ORDER First respondent filed O.S. No.1 06 of 2000 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 28-9-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have filed A.S. NO.53 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. 2. First respondent filed E.P. No.148 of 2005 alleging that the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are violating the decree of perpetual injunction. She also filed I.A. No.35 of 2006 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to grant police aid. She pleaded that the petitioner and respondents.2 and 3 are preventing her from enjoying the property and are obstructing .her from irrigating the suit land. The trial Court allowed the I.A. by order dated 14-2-2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. Sri Venugopala Rao Pasnooru, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondent had resorted to gross misuse of the process of the Court, inasmuch as, she filed the I.A. knowing fully well that the appeal preferred by the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, and the E.P. filed by herself were pending. He contended that there was no justification for the trial Court in ordering the I.A. without ensuring that the aggrieved parties are put on notice. 4. Sri Brahmayya Chowdary, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that though A.S. NO.53 of 2005 was filed, no interim orders were passed therein and that in view of the impending urgency, his client filed the I.A. seeking police protection. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed in O.S. NO.106 of 2000, the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have preferred A.S. No.53 of 2005. It is stated that the first respondent was already served with notice in the appeal and she entered appearance, much before she filed the E.P. No exception can be taken for filing oft he E.P. by the first respondent as long as there was no order of stay, granted by the lower appellate Court. However, once the first respondent filed E.P. for execution of the decree, she was not supposed to invoke the power of the trial Court under Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of police aid. However, once the first respondent filed E.P. for execution of the decree, she was not supposed to invoke the power of the trial Court under Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of police aid. In the affidavit filed in support of LA. NO.35 of 2006, the first respondent did not mention about the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner, or the E.P. filed by her. Therefore, there was suppression of relevant facts on the part of the first respondent. The trial Court allowed the I.A. 6. On noticing that the I.A. was allowed on the same day, on which it was presented, this Court called for a report from the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. In response to the same, the learned Judge submitted a report on 14-8-2006. It is stated that the pendency of the appeal or the E.P. were not brought to his notice, either by the first respondent or by the Chief Ministerial Officer. As regards the ordering of the I.A. on the same day on which it was presented, it is stated that in view of the impending urgency explained by the petitioner, the discretion of the Court was exercised, with a view to protect her interest. 7. When the suit was decreed and an application was filed seeking police protection, it was obligatory on the part of the Chief Ministerial Officer to verify whether any appeal or Execution Petition is pending. The lapse on the part of the Chief Ministerial Officer, in this regard, is very serious and on account of the same, the petitioner was made to suffer gross injustice. 8. Whatever be the circumstances under which I.A. No.35 of 2006 came to be filed or numbered, there does not exist any justification for the learl1ed judge, to have allowed the same on the same day, that too without ensuring that the respondents therein are served with notices. In case there existed any impending urgency, the trial Court could have directed the first respondent herein to take urgent notice to the respondents in the I.A. In a grave situation, it could have even passed orders protecting the interests of both the parties, pending service of notice, posting the I.A. to a later date. Once the I.A. was allowed by granting police protection, the trial Court had shut its doors for the respondents therein, and prevented them from narrating their point of view. Once the I.A. was allowed by granting police protection, the trial Court had shut its doors for the respondents therein, and prevented them from narrating their point of view. The whole episode was unfortunate and the trial Court was required to be cautious and careful in dealing with such delicate matters. The Presiding Officer shall ensure I that such instances do not recur in future. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed with costs at RS.200/- awarded against the first respondent. Accordingly the order under revision is set aside. It shall be open to the first respondent to execute the decree by filing a fresh E.P., in case the lower appellate Court did not grant any interim orders in the appeal.