THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRP No. 732 OF 2022
ORDER :
Challenging the order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2022 in I.A.No.656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, this revision is filed.
2. Heard Sri. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K. Chaitanaya, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The respondents herein/plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.334 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahaboobnagar against the petitioners herein/defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a petition vide I.A.No.656 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction and Court below vide order dated 28.10.2021 granted ex-parte ad- interim injunction. The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was posted to 12-11-2021 after ordering notices. According to the learned counsel 2 for the petitioners, the said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was adjourned to 29.12.2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022.
4. Further, according to the petitioners/defendants, they have filed counter in I.A No.656 of 2021. In the meanwhile, respondents/ plaintiffs have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.121 of 2022 seeking police aid in implementing the ex parte ad interim order dated 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022 was allowed vide order dated 23-02-2022. Aggrieved with the said order dated 23.02.2022, the petitioners/defendants herein have filed the present Revision.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the afore-stated suit vide O.S.No.334 of 2021 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. They have also filed I.A.No.656 of 2021 for ad interim injunction vide order dated 28.10.2021,Court below granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and posted the said Interlocutory application to 12.11.2021 by ordering notice to petitioners herein. Thereafter, the said Interlocutory Application was adjourned to 29.12.2021 and to 23.03.2022.
3
6. It is trite to note that as per Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. But the Court below without doing so, adjourned I.A No. 656 of 2021 to 29-12-2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022. The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 is pending now. In the meanwhile, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed aforesaid petition vide I.A.No.121 of 2022 seeking police aid to implement the said ex parte ad interim injunction passed in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022 was allowed on 23.02.2022 and the Court below granted Police aid.
7. Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court below without hearing the injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.656 of 2021, allowed I.A.No.121 of 2022 and erroneously granted police aid. He has placed reliance on two judgments. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Vanga Buchi Reddy Vs. Vanga Madhusudhan Reddy1 held that when a person against whom the ex parte injunction is passed makes a 1 Order dated 12.04.2014 in CRP No. 4395 of 2003: MANU/AP/0237/2004 4 request to the court to hear the injunction petition on merits, Court should normally postpone the hearing of the petition seeking police aid to enforce the ex parte order of injunction, till the disposal, on merits of the injunction petition. If the person against whom an order of ex parte injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction, petition under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC to punish him can be filed. It should be kept in view that granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction, may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the opposite party, without hearing whom an injunction as granted against him. In Rai Naramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that it is not 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 2 Order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.No.15312 of 2020 5 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. On the other hand, Sri K.Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, referring to the principle laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Gangupanthula Ranga Rao Vs. Bathula Laxmaiah3, in CRP No. 1155 of 2021 dated 22.10.2018 and order of this Court in Rajiv Raj Vs Bodramoni Bhaskar4, would submit that police aid can be granted even to implement ex parte injunction. The trial court having granted ex parte ad interim injunction on 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.656 of 2021 failed to decide within 30 days and failed to record reasons. On the other hand, it has granted police aid.
9. However, in the present case facts are different. As discussed supra, the Court below is obligated to decide I.A.No.656 of 2021, 3 (2018) SCC online Hyd 383; [2018] 6 ALT 778).
4Order dated 17.12.2021 in CRP No.1155 of 2021 6 injunction petition within 30 days from the date of granting injunction. The word 'shall' is used in Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC. Otherwise, Court shall record its reasons for such inability. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents would submit that counters in both I.A.No.121 of 2022 and I.A.No.656 of 2021 were filed. I.A.No.656 of 2021 is also coming for hearing. Thus, according to this Court, the Court below committed error in deciding only police aid petition while keeping injunction petition pending.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, according to this court, the impugned order is not on consideration of actual facts and law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2022 in IA No. 656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021 is liable to be set aside.
11. Therefore, this Revision is disposed of. The order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2022 in IA No. 656 of 2021 in OS No. 334 of 2021 by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is set aside. The learned judge is directed to dispose of both the petitions vide I.A No.121 of 2022 and I.A.No.656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties and pass 7 appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date: 23-08-2022 Note: Issue copy forthwith.
Tssb/vvr 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRP No.732 OF 2022 Date:23-08-2022 Tssb/vvr