THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.2428 OF 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.03.2017 in I.A.No.631 of 2016 in I.A.No.314 of 2016 in O.S.No.58 of 2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, wherein the said application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, was allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are defendants and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.58 of 2016, which was filed for perpetual injunction against the petitioners. Along with the suit, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.314 of 2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners in respect of the petition schedule property. The petitioners filed counter in the said application and also written statement in the suit. The trial court, after hearing both sides 2 and upon considering the documents filed by both sides, by order dated 23.08.2016, granted prohibitory temporary injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with the possession of respondent No.1 over the petition/plaint schedule property, until disposal of the main suit. For implementation of the injunction order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the trial court, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.631 of 2016 for grant of police protection order to safeguard his rights and possession over the petition/suit schedule property. The petitioners filed counter in the said application. By the order impugned in this revision, the trial court allowed I.A.No.631 of 2016 granting police protection order to Station house Officer, Vemulapally Police Station for implementation of the prohibitory temporary injunction order dated 23.08.2016 passed in I.A.No.314 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioners-defendants.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is - whether the impugned order granting police protection in I.A.No.314 of 2016 is maintainable in law?
3
5. A look at the record would disclose that respondent No.1 filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.314 of 2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of temporary injunction against the petitioners in respect of the petition schedule property. The trial court, by order dated 23.08.2016, granted temporary injunction against the petitioners. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.314 of 2016 that on 14.09.2016, when respondent No.1 along with one Mr.Alugubelly Satyanaraya Reddy (purchaser) went to the petition schedule property, the petitioners herein abused, obstructed and threatened him with deadly weapons by saying that they would kill him if the petition schedule property is transferred to anyone. The petitioners have been interfering with the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit schedule property on one pretext or the other even after passing of the temporary injunction orders.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that they have filed W.P.No.31745 of 2016 before this court and obtained interim suspension of the memo dated 16.08.2016 issued by the District 4 Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda and that first respondent is not aware of the suit schedule property and he filed this petition with wrong notion only to defame them. Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with SHO, Vemulapally Police Station in Ex.P-1 and he also filed copy of report dated 03.06.2016 addressed to Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural in Ex.P-2 and also postal receipts in Exs.P-2 to -5. A perusal of the receipts would disclose that in spite of passing temporary injunction orders in favour of respondent No.1 in I.A.No.314 of 2016 on merits, on 23.08.2016, the petitioners herein are interfering with his possession. Though the petitioners herein in their counter in I.A.No.314 of 2016 denied about the interference, however, claimed that respondent No.1 is in possession of suit schedule property and they have filed Ex.R-1 electricity payment receipt and also filed house tax receipts Exs.R-2 and R-3 evidencing that they are in possession of the property. It appears that the above documents produced by the petitioners were obtained subsequent to 23.02.2016 i.e., after passing of the temporary injunction orders in I.A.No.314 of 2016.
5
7. The trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on the judgments of this court, had rightly arrived at the conclusion that when the parties violate the orders of injunction or stay granted by the civil court, the court is competent to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved party for due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also empowered to grant police protection for implementation of such an order.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the court below had rightly taken into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners herein and after duly considering the documents filed both the parties and by relying on the decisions of this court insofar as the grant of police aid and by exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, had rightly granted police protection orders in favour of respondent No.1. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India.
6
9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.11.2022 Lrkm