Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 174 (TS)

Dhanavath Chandya Died v. Dhanavath Madhu

2022-03-10

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by plaintiffs assailing the orders dated 19.11.2019 in I.A.No.292 of 2019 in I.A.No.16 of 2019 in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor. 2. This application in I.A.No.292 of 2019 was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’) with a prayer to direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Thripuraram, to give police protection to the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property. 3. During pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, revision petitioner died. As per order in I.A.No.1 of 2021, his legal representatives are brought on record in the array of petitioners as petitioners No.2 to 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation for the respondents. Though the respondents have engaged an advocates, they did not appear, hence treated as heard. 5. The 1st petitioner as a sole plaintiff has filed O.S.No.6 of 2019 for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. Along with the original suit, he has filed I.A.No.16 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from interfering with his possession over the petition schedule land admeasuring Acs.4.10 guntas in Sy.No.136/2 situated at Matoor Revenue Village, Thripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. The trial Court, by order dated 25.10.2019, after hearing both sides allowed I.A.No.16 of 2019 granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the original suit. 6. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present application in I.A.No.292 of 2019 under section 151 of C.P.C., for police aid to protect his possession. But, the Court below has dismissed the said application with an observation that the petitioner failed to establish the specific instances of violation or disobedience of the injunction orders by the defendants. Aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. As stated above, during pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the sole revision petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. As stated above, during pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the sole revision petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 7. The order in I.A.No.16 of 2019 was passed after hearing on both sides and on considering the documents Exs.P1 to P4 on behalf of petitioners and Ex.R1 to R6 on behalf of respondents, holding that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and that on 27.01.2019, the respondents tried to interfere with his possession which has to be safeguarded by way of injunction order and if no such order is passed in favour of the petitioner, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 8. From the material available on record, it appears, before the orders dated 25.10.2019 are passed in I.A.No.16 of 2019 i.e., during pendency of said I.A., the petitioner has filed the present application on 23.08.2019. Counter was filed to this application on 09.09.2019, whereas the temporary injunction was granted as per the orders in I.A.No.16 of 2019 on 25.10.2019. As per the order impugned, the respondents have filed detailed counter denying the averments in the petition contending that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property and only in order to occupy the petition schedule property under the grab of ex parte temporary injunction, he has filed petition seeking police aid. In fact, the respondents obtained 13-B patta certificate and effected mutation in the record of rights. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners appeared to have filed the original suit and a criminal case is also registered in this context in Cr.No.143 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 I.P.C. 9. Be that as it may, the Court below has passed a detailed order after full length of enquiry in I.A.No.16 of 2019 granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners with an observation that petitioners are able to establish prima facie possession over the petition schedule property, which is sine qua non for grant of temporary injunction and his possession has to be safeguarded by way of granting temporary injunction. 10. 10. Once the Court has granted temporary injunction and the said orders are in force, since the respondents did not prefer any appeal and that they have attempted to obstruct the agricultural operations and other activities of the plaintiff, threatened the plaintiff and his family members, a criminal case is also registered the plaintiffs are entitled for police aid to protect their possession. Accordingly, at that stage, plaintiff has filed the present application under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking police aid. Though the defendants have totally denied the case of the plaintiff stating that they obtained 13-B patta certificate, mutation was effected in record of rights. 11. The trial Court, considering the rival contentions and on careful scrutiny of the documents that were exhibited on both sides, granted temporary injunction. Thus, the defendants have suffered an order of injunction and failed to assail the same before the appropriate appellate forum but attempted to obstruct the plaintiff and interfered with his possession over the petition schedule property. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is compelled to approach the Court to protect his possession seeking police aid for enforcing the temporary injunction granted is in his favour. In such circumstances, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said application only on the premise that except bald allegations, no specific details of interference of the defendants are mentioned in the affidavit filed in respect of this application. 12. The law is well settled that when a temporary injunction order is in force and the original suit is still pending, police aid can be granted in deserving and appropriate cases under section 151 of C.P.C. [Subrtamanya Vs. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and Others, 2020 (4) ALT 62 TS]. 13. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order of the Court below in refusing the grant of police aid is not justified. As long as temporary injunction order is in force, it is the duty of the Court to protect the possession of the petitioners and that unless and until the high handed action of the defendants is curtailed by grant of police aid, there is every possibility of violation of injunction orders driving the petitioners/plaintiffs to file applications for enforcement. 14. As long as temporary injunction order is in force, it is the duty of the Court to protect the possession of the petitioners and that unless and until the high handed action of the defendants is curtailed by grant of police aid, there is every possibility of violation of injunction orders driving the petitioners/plaintiffs to file applications for enforcement. 14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation of the Court below that the party obtaining temporary injunction shall either file an application under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C., or under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C., for execution of the said interim injunction, seeking attachment and arrest of violators for contempt of the Court is unwarranted. When the Court is otherwise competent to protect the possession by granting police aid under Section 151 of C.P.C., the petitioner cannot be forced or compelled to file such application either under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C., or under Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C., for violation and consequential reliefs. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned. Consequently, I.A.No.292 of 2019 stands allowed. The Station House Officer, Thripuraram Police Station, is hereby directed to give necessary police protection to the petitioners in enforcing the interim injunction orders passed in favour of the petitioners as per the orders in I.A.No.16 of 2019 dated 25.10.2019. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending stands cancelled.