HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.159 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2020 in I.A. No.226 of 2020 in O.S. No.3409 of 2019 of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. By the said order, the Court below had dismissed I.A No.226 of 2020 filed by the petitioner for grant of police aid to stop the alleged interference by respondents 2 and 3 and others over the subject property admeasuring Acs.3.17 gts. situated in Sy.Nos.4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad.
3. Prior thereto, it is not in dispute that there was an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 31.12.2019 in I.A. No.739 of 2020 in O.S. No.3409 of 2019 against the respondents 1 to 4, till filing of counters by the respondents.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners in the Revision that inspite of the said order being in force, respondent No.s 1 to 4 along with their henchmen tried to attack the petitioners, created nuisance and forcibly dismantled a board fixed in the property. It was also contended that inspite of the injunction order, the respondents are frequently interfering and disturbing the possession of the petitioners over the property and though complaint filed to the Police, Golconda, they did not take any action against the respondents.
2 MSR,J
CRP No.159 of 2021
5. The respondents contended that the application for police aid itself is not maintainable. According to respondents, the orders were obtained by making misrepresentation to the Court and that under the guise of the ex parte ad interim injunction order, the petitioners were trying to take possession over the suit schedule property and that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit schedule property.
6. By order, dated 28.09.2020, the court below dismissed I.A. No.226 of 2020 stating that there should be a high proof to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that there was violation of injunction order granted in their favour by the Court below and it relied on the decision of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuir Koteshwara Rao1.
7. In subsequent judgments reported in Gampala Anthaiah V. Kasarla Venkat Reddy2 and Yarlagunta Bhasker Rao v. Bommaji Danam3, this Court had held that the decision in Polavarapu Naganani ( 1 supra) had not taken note of the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi4 and P.R.Muralidharan and others v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others5 and it erroneously held that when an application is filed by a person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection, but if he alleges that the said order has been violated , an application for police protection would not lie. 1 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB) 2 2014 (2) ALD 281 3 2014 (1) ALD 309 4 (2007) 12 SCC 201 5 (2006) 4 SCC 501 3 MSR,J CRP No.159 of 2021
8. This Court in Gampala Anthaiah ( 2 supra) and Yarlagunta Bhasker Rao ( 3 supra) held that the view expressed in Polavarapu Nagamani's ( 1 supra) case is not correct in view of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, and held that even when there is a violation of an injunction order in a suit ( as opposed to a situation where only a threat of violation exists), orders of police protection may be granted and declared that the view expressed in Polavarapu Nagamani ( 1 supra) insofar as it held that an application for police protection is not maintainable if there is violation of injunction order, was held to be per incuriam.
9. Having regard to the fact that the Court below had followed the decision in Polavarapu Nagamani's ( 1 supra) case which has been held to be per incuriam in Gampala Anthaiah ( 2 supra) and Yarlagunta Bhasker Rao ( 3 supra), an interim order was granted on 15.02.2021 in I.A.No. 2 of 2021, after referring to the judgment of the a Full Bench of this Court in Sada And Ors. vs The Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad6.
10. Reference to the judgment in Sada And Ors ( 8 Supra) had to be made because it is the case of the petitioners that they are legal heirs of protected tenants, by name, Allu Rajanna and Allu Venkamma under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and that their application for succession was not considered in proceedings No.C/5703/1993, dt. 16.11.2019 by 6 AIR 1988 AP 77 (FB) 4 MSR,J CRP No.159 of 2021 the Tahsilar, Shaikpet Mandal, driving them to approach the Civil Court; and so they filed the suit in respect to the grant of succession to the alleged protected tenants Allu Rajanna and Allu Venkamma in respect of these lands.
11. After this order had been granted by this Court on 15.02.2021, respondents 1 and 2 represented by Ms. G. Sudha and the 7th respondent, who is impleaded in I.A No.3 of 2021 on 09.03.2021, through the learned counsel Sri T.Sanjay Rao, have raised contentions that under the guise of the order passed by this Court on 15.02.2021, they had been dispossessed and the petitioners were altering the physical features of the property.
12. I do not wish to express any opinion on the contentions of either the petitioners or by the respondents in the Revision because admittedly, I.A No.739 of 2019 for grant of ad interim injunction is still pending before the Court of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
13. I, therefore, grant liberty to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the 7th respondent to approach the Court below immediately, if necessary by filing an implead application and counter affidavits (in case of the 7th respondent) in I.A.No.739 of 2019, and get I.A. No.739 of 2019 decided by the Court below.
14. Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of directing the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to decide I.A No.739 of 2019 on his 5 MSR,J CRP No.159 of 2021 file, after hearing all the parties within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Till the said IA is disposed of by the Court below, none of the parties shall change the physical features of the subject property.
16. The grant of police aid by this Court will abide by the result in I.A. No.739 of 2019.
17. It is made clear that this Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and all issues shall be decided by the Court below in I.A. No.739 of 2019 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. No costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J March 19, 2021 Note:
Furnish CC by 23.03.2021.
B/O.
KTL