Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 881 (TS)

Mengre Bijju v. Mengre Babu Rao

2024-12-27

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2024
ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.09.2024 in I.A.No.170 of 2024 in I.A. No. 84 of 2024 in O.S. No. 20 of 2024, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Asifabad, whereby the said I.A., filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for Police Protection stands allowed. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents therein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2024 against the defendants, who are revision petitioners herein, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Sy.No.69/c, extent Acrs.1.1800 guntas, Sy.No.:70/a/1, extent Acrs 0.1160 guntas, Sy.No.70/a/2, extent Acrs 0.1160 guntas and Sy.No.70/C/1, extent of Acrs 0.1100 guntas, total admeasuring Acrs.2-1220 guntas situated at Jankapur village, Asifabad Mandal, Kumram Bheem District, and the trial Court granted ex parte temporary injunction on 07.06.2024 vide I.A.No. 84 of 2024, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the said land till 15.07.2024, and the said orders were served upon the respondents/defendants. The said ex-parte interim injunction order is in force. 3. In spite of temporary injunction orders, the respondents/defendants and their yes-men were threatening the petitioner/plaintiff with dire consequences and also obstructing his agricultural operations in the suit land by violating the injunction orders passed by the trial Court. As such, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition under Order 151 r/w Order 31 Rule–1 of the Civil Procedure Code vide I.A.No.170 of 2024 in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2024 for Police Protection and the same was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the trial Court without issuing any notice to the revision petitioners and without any evidence granted Police Aid to the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and others Vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others , 2010 (6) ALT 92 , wherein it was observed as under: “24…Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others , 2010 (6) ALT 92 , wherein it was observed as under: “24…Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction arc tiled only to bring the defendants around the plaintiffs view and accept some via- media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under section 151 of C PC seeking police protection, instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the Courts should be very very cautious and vigilant not to introduce police intervention in civil adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the civil Courts in the State of Andhra pradesh to exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by the party obtaining an order of injunction seeking police protection. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, we hold and lay down as under: (i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under order XXXIX Rule 2a of C PC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the court. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Sec.94 (e) or section 151 of C PC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Sec.94 (e) or section 151 of C PC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (m) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party. (iii) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme court in Chottu Ram V/s. Urvashi gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil ratan Sarkar v, Hirak Ghosh, (2002)4 SCC 21 , in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the partly seeking the intervention of the Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that there was an ex parte interim order, and notices were issued to the respondents/defendants (revision petitioners herein). The respondent/plaintiff also filed an application before the Police Authorities to take steps against the petitioners, who are threatening him. But, the Police did not take any action against the respondents/defendants and submitted that the trial Court has rightly considered the application for police aid and allowed the same. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that while granting Police Aid, the trial Court should see that the standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. 7. Moreover, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the revision petitioners had not been served any notice and without hearing them, the trial Court had allowed the Police Aid Petition. 8. 7. Moreover, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the revision petitioners had not been served any notice and without hearing them, the trial Court had allowed the Police Aid Petition. 8. In view of the above submission, the order dated 02.09.2024 in I.A.No.170 of 2024 in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2024 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the parties to argue the matter with regard to Police Aid only and on hearing both parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.