Telangana High Court
Darga Ashok, vs C. Pulla Reddy, on 21 June, 2024
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1776 of 2024
ORDER :
The instant Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner / judgment-debtor No.2 praying the Court to set aside the order dated 18.12.2023 in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014 passed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the impugned order'), and to dismiss the same.
2. Heard Mr.Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner / judgment-debtor No.2.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Court below allowed the above E.P. by directing the concerned police to grant police aid to respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein to the extent of protecting them from defendants / judgment-debtors.
4. Initially the suit was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 seeking for a perpetual injunction.
::2:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
5. On 17.06.2022, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 by holding that they have established their right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. It further specifically held that the defendants / judgment-debtors, their henchmen, agents, representatives in person or persons claiming through them are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property.
6. By efflux of time, the impugned order has gone unchallenged, and the same has attained finality.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the defendants / judgment-debtors in the above suit tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property, the above E.P.No.10 of 2022 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 seeking for police aid so as to ensure strict implementation of the impugned order. Vide order dated 18.12.2023, the impugned order came to be passed by the Court below granting police aid to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property.
::3:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
8. Aggrieved, the present Revision has been filed by the petitioner.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner banked upon a decision delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of D. Tulja Devi and others vs. Margam Shankar and another 1, wherein the Division Bench held that an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking perpetual injunction cannot be disposed of by directing the police to ensure obedience to the decree.
10. However, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the above suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 was for a perpetual injunction and which was decreed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. In the said judgment and decree it has been specifically held by the Court below that it is the respondent Nos.1 to 6 who are in actual possession of the suit schedule property and it is the defendants / judgment-debtors who have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property.
1
2009 S.C.C. Online A.P. 797
::4:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
11. In the said contextual backdrop, if the defendants / judgment-debtors are trying to interfere with the possession of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property, and in the teeth of the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014 having gone unchallenged and also having attained finality, and when the Court below has granted the respondent Nos.1 to 6 police aid so far as implementation of the order is concerned, the same has to be considered to the extent of ensuring that peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 should not be hindered. The order passed the Court below in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014, which was filed under Order XXI Rule 31 of C.P.C., was not for a direction to the police to ensure that defendants / judgment-debtors herein be dispossessed and vacant possession be given to the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Rather, the direction was only to ensure compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below which is only to the extent that the defendants / judgment-debtors are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the respondent Nos.1 to 6, and that the police aid which has been ::5:: PSK,J crp_1776_2024 ordered also would be only to the aforesaid extent and cannot be anything beyond doubt.
12. As regards the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in D. Tulja Devi (supra) is concerned, the same has been decided in a reference case by the Division Bench under entirely different contextual and factual backdrop unlike in the present case where the judgment and decree itself has gone unchallenged and has attained finality, and the judgment and decree itself specifically mentions that it is the respondents / plaintiffs who are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
13. Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 18.12.2024 in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014 passed by the Court below is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, in the given factual backdrop, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for interference of the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Revision therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
::6:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 21.06.2024
Ndr