THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.5418 OF 2022 and 21388 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER: (ORAL)
The issue involved in both these writ petitions is interlinked;
therefore, both these writ petitions are being heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.21388 of 2019 is filed aggrieved by the action of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not providing police aid for
implementation of the decree dated 04.10.2017 in O.S.No.220 of 2013 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, despite granting police aid in E.A.No.62 of 2018 in E.P.No.40 of 2018 in the said O.S.No.220 of 2013.
3. W.P.No.5418 of 2022 is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not providing police aid for implementation of the decree dated 21.11.2017 in O.S.No.248 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, despite granting police aid vide order dated 19.11.2018 in E.A. of 2018 in E.P.No.37 of 2018 in the said O.S.No.248 of 2013.
2
BVR,J WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.5418 of 2022 is respondent No.5 in W.P.No.21388 of 2019, and the petitioners in W.P.No.21388 of 2019 are respondent Nos.3 and 8 in W.P.5418 of 2022.
6. The petitioner in W.P.No.5418 of 2022 claims to be an absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.35 guntas in Survey No.630/6 situated at Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, and in respect of the said property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.248 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, seeking perpetual injunction; whereas the petitioners in W.P.No.21388 of 2019 claim to be absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Survey No.630 situated at Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, and they filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of 2013 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, seeking the same relief of perpetual injunction.
7. As could be seen from the record, in both the suits i.e., O.S.No.220 of 2013 and O.S.No.248 of 2013, judgments were 3 BVR,J WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019 passed on 04.10.2017 and 21.11.2017 respectively, decreeing suits in favour of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, in the Execution Applications in Execution Petitions filed in both the suits, police aid was granted in favour of the decree holders/petitioners herein.
8. It is interesting to note that the petitioners who sought for police aid in pursuance of injunction decree passed in their favour in O.S.No.220 of 2013 opposed for granting police aid to their opposite party in pursuance of injunction decree passed in O.S.No.248 of 2013.
9. As seen from above one decree was passed in respect of Survey No.630 and another decree was passed in respect of Survey No.630/6 situated in Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, respectively. It appears there is a boundary dispute between the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court ought to have been careful while granting police aid in Execution Petitions filed by the petitioners in these writ petitions, which are in conflict with each other. If police aid is granted in one case and rejected in another case, the situation would have been different. In case there is boundary dispute between both the parties, it is not understandable how the police would implement 4 BVR,J WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019 both the decrees in respect of Survey No.630 & 630/6, without there being clear demarcation of the subject properties. If common judgment had been passed by clubbing both the suits, there would not have been any confusion. Both the suits were filed in the year 2013. Neither the parties have taken any steps nor the trial Court has taken a suo moto decision to club both the suits. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, when two separate decrees are passed in two suits, it will not be possible for the police to provide police aid for implementation of such decrees and it would lead to further confusion.
10. In the above circumstances, both these writ petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file an application under order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. It is made clear that police aid shall not be extended to any of the parties until final orders are passed in main Execution Petitions i.e., E.P.No.248 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2013; and E.P.No.40 of 2018 in O.S.No.220 of 2013. The trial Court /Executing court shall club both the EPs and conduct common enquiry before passing final orders. No order as to costs. 5
BVR,J WP.No.5418 of 2022 &21388 of 2019 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J December 05, 2022 NSP