Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1391 (AP)

Yeddula Rami Reddy v. M. Indira

2023-10-13

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 16/12/2021 passed in IA No.721 of 2018 in IA No.677 of 2017 in OS No.672 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, directing the Station House Officer, G.D. Nellore Police Station to provide police aid to 1st respondent herein/plaintiff as and when required. 2. Petitioner herein is 1st defendant, 1st respondent herein is plaintiff and 2nd respondent herein is 2nd defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.672 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. In the said suit, she filed IA No.677 of 2017 for grant of temporary injunction and the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, by an order dtd. 13/12/2017, granted ex parte ad-interim injunction in her favour. Subsequently, she filed IA No.721 of 2018 for grant of police aid by directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, GD Nellore Police Station to give protection to her and to the petition schedule property. By an order dtd. 16/12/2021, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, allowed the said application and the Station House Officer, G.D. Nellore Police Station was directed to provide police aid to the plaintiff as and when required. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by 1st defendant. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/1st defendant submits that, nowhere in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff it is stated that the defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession over the petition schedule property, except making a vague and bald statement to the extent that the defendants are giving troubles to her in enjoying the suit schedule property and beyond that no specific instance has been mentioned in the affidavit, as to when the defendants interfered with her peaceful possession over the petition schedule property. Learned counsel further submits that basing on the ex parte ad-interim injunction orders, plaintiff obtained police protection even though 1st defendant filed his counter and he is ready for inquiry in the injunction petition. Learned counsel further submits that basing on the ex parte ad-interim injunction orders, plaintiff obtained police protection even though 1st defendant filed his counter and he is ready for inquiry in the injunction petition. He further submits that an order of police protection could not have been granted pursuant to an ex parte ad-interim injunction, while the application for injunction is pending adjudication, and in support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 (3) ALD 238 (AP) 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that when a temporary injunction is granted, it goes without saying that police aid can be provided when the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the petition schedule property. 6. Heard. Perused the material on record. 7. In Rai Naramma's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant, in paragraph 7, it was held thus. "7. It is now well settled law that only when there is a decree for permanent injunction and only when there is an order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is made absolute after hearing both the parties, then only the Courts usually either the Civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant police aid for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. But when the ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted without hearing the respondents and when the same is not made absolute granting a temporary injunction order, till the disposal of the suit, on merits, the Courts will not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. Since it is not an order on merits after hearing both the parties, the Courts would be very slow in granting police aid, till the possession and rights of the parties are determined after enquiry based on evidence." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid decision clearly shows that police aid can be granted only when there is a decree for permanent injunction or an order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is made absolute after hearing both the parties, for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. When an ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted without hearing the respondents and more so when the same is not made absolute granting a temporary injunction order, till the disposal of the suit, on merits, the Courts shall not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. 9. In the case on hand, pursuant to passing of ex parte adinterim injunction order, plaintiff has filed the present application for grant of police aid by casually saying that the defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession. Merely because an ex parte ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of plaintiff, it does not entitle her for grant of police aid. 10. Further, it is essential that the plaintiff has to show that the defendants have interfered with her peaceful possession of the schedule property after grant of the injunction. It is obligatory on the part of plaintiff to show that the defendants interfered with her peaceful possession by mentioning the date and time, and that in connection with the same, a complaint has to be filed by the plaintiff before the police. In the absence of any concrete and satisfactory material put forth by the plaintiff to that effect, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of police aid automatically and in a mechanical manner. The plaintiff failed to show that there is a necessity for grant of police aid. In the absence of the same, the Court below should not have granted police aid basing on the vague and bald statement made by plaintiff that the defendants are giving troubles to her in enjoying the suit schedule property. The Court below has passed the impugned order granting police aid in a casual and mechanical manner. Further, when the police called the parties, they did not cooperate for inquiry. In such circumstances, there is no apprehension to the extent that there is grave threat to plaintiff so as to seek police aid for protecting herself and her property. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision reported in Rai Naramma's case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision reported in Rai Naramma's case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dtd. 16/12/2021 passed in IA No.721 of 2018 in IA No.677 of 2017 in OS No.672 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that the defendants are not cooperating for disposal of injunction petition, so as to make the ex parte ad-interim injunction order absolute. In view of the same, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, is directed to dispose of IA No.677 of 2017 in OS No.672 of 2017, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the parties shall cooperate for disposal of the petition. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.