Telangana High Court
Dudipala Venkat Papi Reddy vs Rakonda Bheem Reddy on 20 November, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2117 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Revision is directed against the order dated 25-01-2024 in I.A. No. 508 of 2023 in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022 in O.S. No. 359 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District.
2. Petitioners herein are plaintiffs. They filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining respondents - defendants, their workers/servants, agents and representatives or any person or persons claiming through them, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In I.A.No. 1043 of 2022, the trial Court by order dated 02-09-2022 granted Ad-interim injunction till filing of counters. Further, respondents filed their counter in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022 on 29-09-2022 and trial Court by order dated 29-09-2022 granted extension of interim orders till 25-10-2022 and since then, from time to time, interim orders are being extended and as on date, interim injunction order is still subsisting. It is the case of petitioners that despite the interim injunction orders passed by the competent civil court, Respondents are wilfully disobeying the orders of trial Court by not only interfering with their peaceful possession over subject lands but on 28-04-2023 2 had damaged the seasonal crops and also boundary stones and sign boards erected by them. Against which, Petitioners had given criminal complaint, the same was registered as FIR No. 58 of 2023 dated 29-04-2023 and the same is pending investigation. The cases so far registered against the Respondents/Defendants are FIR Nos. 122, 134,143 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondents/Defendants, by constantly threatening Petitioners, had not only committed breach and disobedience of the order passed by the Trial Court in I.Α. No. 1043 of 2022 in O.S. No. 359 of 2022, but also creating law and order situation in the village and Petitioners are unable to oppose them as they reside at Hyderabad and were outnumbered by their supporters who are anti-social elements, as such, left with no option the Petitioners were constrained to take out I.A.No. 508 of 2023 seeking police aid to implement the interim injunction orders dated 02-09-2022 passed in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022 in O.S. No 359 of 2022 in the interest of justice.
3. Respondents in their counter filed in I.A.No. 508 of 2023, had not denied with regard to registration of FIRs against them, however contends that police aid cannot be granted as rights of the parties had not been determined finally. 3
4. The trial Court, relying on the judgments of this Court in Bijiga Paparao v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, dated 07.11.2014 and P.Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela, dated 20.01.2000, held that high degree of proof is necessary to grant police aid, however, in the present case, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to prove their case except filing affidavit along with petition under Section 151 C.P.C. Further, it was held that in the present case, petitioners contended that respondents caused interference to peaceful possession over subject land on 28.04.2023 and destructed the boundary stone and sign board erected by them, further, respondent No.4 had given press meet on 28.05.2023 claiming that they are in possession of suit land, but no iota of evidence is placed before this Court by petitioners to substantiate their claim, except making bald statement. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that there is no imminent threat of dispossession of petitioners by respondents. Thus, holding, the Application was dismissed.
5. It is stated that when Respondents/Defendants questioned the validity of sale deeds executed in favour of Petitioners with respect to suit scheduled property by filing O.S. No. 83 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, the same was dismissed with costs, against which defendants filed A.S. No. 261 of 2022, which was disposed by 4 confirming Petitioners' ownership. Further, the Respondents/Defendants had challenged the said Order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 13057/2023 which was also dismissed on 15-05-2023. Thus, Petitioners right, title and interest over the subject lands was confirmed right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, despite this, the Respondents/Defendants are interfering with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment, left with no other option, they had filed the subject suit seeking injunction.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Mallipeddi Srinivas Reddy submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and against the probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. without proper appreciation of Law and passed the Impugned Order based on mere assumptions and presumptions. The trial Court failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that admitted facts need not be proved. According to learned counsel, any facts averred in the Petition must be denied specifically and if no plea is not taken in that manner, then the averments shall be taken to be admitted and in the instance case, Respondents neither denied the slew of F.LRs. filed against them nor denied the press meet addressed by them, wherein they had asserted that they are in possession 5 of the suit scheduled property, as such, the trial Court ought not to have held that there is no iota of evidence before the Court in respect of breach of injunction orders. It is contended Respondents did not seek to set aside the interim injunction order dated 02-09-2022 nor filed any documents to demonstrate that they are in possession over the suit scheduled property. Reiterating that it is settled law that civil Courts have power to issue directions to Police Officials for implementing Order of injunction, learned counsel submits that injunction order is subsisting till date and despite the same, Respondents are constantly trying to dispossess Petitioners. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Syed Sadullah Hussaini v. Syed Waliullah 1, Talla Srinivas Goud v. Ghanapuram Srinivas Reddy 2, E. Venkatarama Naidu v. E. Ramacandra Naidu 3 and Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao v. Bommaji Danam 4 in this context.
7. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, respondents have not come up with any counter-affidavit.
8. From a perusal of the order under Revision, it is evident that the Court below dismissed the Application for police aid on the ground that petitioners failed to prove imminent 1 2017(1) ALT 553 2 2022(1) ALT 189 (S.B.) 3 2015(5) ALT 238 (S.B.) 4 2014(2) ALT 319 (S.B.) 6 threat of breach of injunction order by respondents. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A., petitioners have categorically stated that defendants with the aid of anti-social elements, had tried to attack and abuse them in filthy language and threaten them to leave the subject lands, for which, they have lodged complaints vide FIR Nos. 122, 134, 143 of 2022, which were taken cognizance as C.C.Nos. 62 of 2023, 63 of 2023 and 64 of 2023 and Crime No. 58 of 2023 is pending investigation. In all the crimes, the offence alleged is under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. read with Section 34 IPC. That itself discloses that there is an element of threat. Further, in the affidavit, it has been stated that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 42691 of 2022, when the Mandal Surveyor, Kulkachaerla on 27.04.2023 tried to conduct survey of subject lands, defendants had not only openly threatened them but also threatened the revenue officials and it is only after intervention by police of Kulkachaerla, survey could be conducted. After completion of survey on 27.04.2023, when petitioners left the suit property, next day, respondents had completely destroyed the boundary stones and sign board erected by them. Further, the 4th defendant gave a press meet on 28.05.2023 claiming that they are in possession of property which goes to show the highhandedness and blatant disobedience of the interim order 7 of injunction. It is also pleaded that petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20754 of 2023 seeking police aid, wherein this Court by order dated 19.10.2023, gave liberty to petitioners to file Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC in the subject suit seeking police protection for implementation of orders in I.A.No. 1043 of 2022 and if such an Application is filed, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parigi shall dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
9. However, the learned trial Judge, did not take the same into consideration. He recorded that copy of complaint, acknowledgment of complaint and FIR were not brought on record hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Relying on the judgments (supra), the learned Judge held that to prove his case, petitioners have to establish high degree of proof and there is imminent threat of breach of injunction order. Since in the case on hand, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to prove high degree of proof which is necessary to grant police, dismissed the Application.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Judge erred in holding that petitioners failed to establish high degree of proof for, it is a matter of record that whenever defendants tried to interfere with the subject property, petitioners filed complaints which were registered as FIRs. and 8 subsequently, the same were taken cognizance of by the competent jurisdictional criminal Court. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, stated supra also, are to the effect that police aid can be granted under Section 151 CPC, not only when there is a threat of dispossession, as contended by petitioners / defendants but also when there is a complaint of violation of order of temporary injunction. In Talla Srinivas Goud's case, this Court enunciated the following aspects for ready reference of the Courts below:
1) The duty of the Court is not only to protect the rights and interest of the parties, but also to see that its orders are property implemented.
2) Procedure which would meet the ends of justice orf which would prevent the abuse of process of the Court should always be followed, as the procedure is handmaid of justice.
3) All revenue and police authorities are under obligation to assist the Courts (civil or criminal) of all cadres for rendering substantial and complete justice to the parties.
4) Breach of orders of the Courts of justice should be viewed seriously.
5) Grant of an order is of no use if its implementation cannot be fructified.
6) Absence of specific provision of law should not bar the aggrieved of an appropriate remedy. In such cases, inherent powers of the Court should be invoked to protect the rights of the parties.
7) Granting police aid to prevent violation of an order of temporary injunction is always better and desirable, than initiating contempt proceedings or invoking other provisions of law after the order of temporary injunction of the Court is breached.
8) Courts have got ample power to invoke Section151 CPC to prevent abuse of process of law.
9) An application under Section151 CPC to grant police aid to prevent breach of an order for temporary injunction is well maintainable.9
10) In deserving case, police aid can be granted to sub serve the ends of justice.
11) Unless and until the Court is satisfied that grant of police aid would help in mitigating grave situations such an order should not be granted.
11. In view of the above settled legal position and the factual backdrop narrated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the order under Revision is liable to be set aside.
12. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. The order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi is set aside. Petitioners may approach the jurisdictional police station for grant of aid for proper implementation of order of temporary injunction through an appropriate Application and in case such a request is made, the jurisdictional police shall grant aid till the subsistence of order of temporary injunction.
13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 20th November 2024 ksld