Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3022 AP

 5THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                WRIT PETITION No.10881 OF 2021

ORDER:-

      This writ petition is filed seeking police aid for effective

implementation     of   the   temporary    injunction    order    dated

10.02.2021 that was granted in favour of the petitioner in

I.A.No.224 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned

Senior Civil Judge's Court, Peddapuram.

2.    As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, he has purchased

Ac.10-00 cents of land covered by R.S.No.195/2B situated at

Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, under

a registered sale deed, dated 17-07-2020 from one Smt. Kuchimanchi

Uma Maheswara Rao for valid consideration and he became absolute

owner of the said property and has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same. It is stated that, when the 4th respondent

interfered with his possession, claiming that he is the cultivating

tenant under the vendor of the petitioner, that the petitioner has filed

a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge's

Court, Peddapuram, for permanent injunction restraining the 4th

respondent and his henchmen from interfering with his possession

and enjoyment of the said land and that he has also filed an

Interlocutory Application No.224 of 2020 in the said suit, seeking

temporary injunction and that the said civil Court has granted

temporary injunction on merits after hearing both the parties on

10.02.2021. It is stated that, C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 was preferred by

the 4th respondent against the said order of temporary injunction

before the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, but no order

suspending the said order of temporary injunction, was granted.

3. The petitioner states that despite passing of temporary

injunction against the petitioner, that the 4th respondent has been

interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said

land in utter violation of the temporary injunction. Therefore, the

petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition seeking

police aid for effective implementation of the said order.

4. The 4th respondent has filed counter stating that his family has

been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.25.85 cents covered by

S.No.195 of Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari

District, from the time of their ancestors as cultivating tenants under

estate of Pithapuram Rajah and village Gokavaram is an inam estate.

5. It is stated that the litigation in respect of the said land

commenced in the year 1956 before various statutory authorities

regarding entitlement of pattas and the present writ petition is a part

of a 3rd round litigation in the said process. It is pleaded that the

proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 are also initiated at the instance of the family of one

Kuchimanchi Seethayamma and the 4th respondent and his brothers

filed Criminal Petition No.10866 of 2017 before this Court for quash

and this Court quashed the said order on 28-11-2017.

6. It is further pleaded that while so, the present registered sale

deed which is a void one, was pressed into service and the writ

petitioner has filed the above suit and initially obtained exparte

interim injunction order and thereafter temporary injunction order

was passed making the ad-interim injunction order absolute on

10.02.2021. It is stated that this respondent has preferred C.M.A.

against the said order on the file of learned VII Additional District

Judge, Kakinada and the said C.M.A. is now pending. It is further

pleaded that the petitioner can as well pursue his remedy under

Order 39, Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short

"C.P.C."), if there is any violation of the Court's order and thereby

prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for the 4th

respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in

I.A.No.224 of 2020 which was filed seeking temporary injunction in

O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Peddapuram, the competent civil Court has granted temporary

injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the 4th respondent

as per order dated 10-02-2021 and for effective implementation of the

said order, the present writ petition has been filed seeking police aid,

as the 4th respondent has been interfering with his possession of the

land, despite the aforesaid order of temporary injunction that was

passed by the competent civil Court. He would further submit that

the application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking

police aid, was withdrawn and as such, the present writ petition is

maintainable. Therefore, he would pray for grant of police aid to

implement the order of temporary injunction.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit

that as there is a civil suit pending between both the parties, that

unless there is an order of the competent Court, to grant police aid

for implementation of the order of injunction, that police normally

will not interfere with the said civil dispute. Therefore, he would

submit that if any order is passed granting police aid, that the police

will provide police aid for implementation of the said order.

10. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that

initially ad-interim injunction was granted exparte and the said

injunction petition was not disposed of within a period of thirty (30)

days, as per the mandate contained under Order 39, Rule 3 of C.P.C.

and as such, the said interim injunction order became nonest. So,

no police aid can be granted to implement the order which became

nonest. He would further submit that the petitioner has initially filed

a petition before the trial Court for grant of police aid to implement

the order of temporary injunction, which was made absolute, on

merits and during pendency of the said petition, he is before this

Court by way of this writ petition and sought to maintain parallel

proceedings before the trial Court and the High Court and as such,

the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contends

that the 4th respondent has preferred C.M.A.NO.3 of 2021 against the

order of temporary injunction passed in I.A.No.224 of 2020 on the file

of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same is

pending and as appeal is continuation of the proceedings of

injunction application that the present writ petition for grant of police

aid, is not maintainable. On the aforesaid three grounds, the 4th

respondent opposed the present writ petition and learned counsel for

4th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

11. It is not in dispute that the ad-interim injunction order that

was initially passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram

in I.A.No.224 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 was subsequently made

absolute on merits, after hearing both the parties and granted

temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, when the

Court has passed an order granting temporary injunction, till

disposal of the suit, on merits, it is no more open to the

4th respondent to contend that the ad-interim injunction order that

was earlier granted, became nonest for non-compliance with the

provisions mandated under Order 39, Rule 3 of C.P.C. Therefore, the

said contention is hereby rejected.

12. As regards the other contention, that the petitioner got

alternative remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. for willful

disobedience of the temporary injunction and under Section 95(e) of

C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. and that the present writ petition is

not maintainable without exhausting the said alternative remedies is

concerned, it is well settled law that the person in whose favour, a

decree for permanent injunction or an order of temporary injunction

was passed by a competent civil Court, that he got two remedies. He

can as well approach the trial Court which passed the said decree or

order and seek police aid for effective implementation of the said

decree or order, or he can approach the writ Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking police aid for effective

implementation of the said decree or temporary injunction order.

Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner got remedy under Order

39, Rule 2(A), Section 95(e) etc., cannot be a bar to maintain the

present writ petition. Therefore, the said contention is also liable to

be rejected.

13. Apropos the contention that the 4th respondent has preferred

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the temporary injunction order in

C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional District

Judge, Kakinada is concerned, admittedly, no stay is granted against

the temporary injunction order that was passed by the trial Court.

Therefore, when no stay was granted in the said Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal, mere pendency of the said appeal cannot be a bar for grant of

police aid to the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the said

contention is also liable to be rejected.

14. Regarding the contention that the petitioner has filed an

application for grant of police aid before the trial Court and during

pendency of the said application, he has filed this writ petition and

the said parallel proceedings cannot be maintained, during pendency

of this writ petition is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the

petitioner has withdrawn the application filed before the trial Court

seeking police aid. Therefore, as the said application before the trial

Court is now withdrawn, now there is no bar or impediment to

entertain this writ petition.

15. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the 4th respondent

opposing the present writ petition is legally sustainable.

16. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of P.R.Murlidharan

and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others1

held at para No.19 that :-

"A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order."

17. Therefore, the legal position is now clear that when there was a

decree passed or an order at interlocutory stage, like the present one

on merits, after hearing both the parties, writ Court can grant police

aid by entertaining the writ petition filed to that effect for effective

implementation of the said temporary injunction order.

2006 (4) SCC 501

18. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh also in the case of

Subrtamanya vs. Principal Secretary, Home Department,

Hyderabad and others2 also held that :-

"Police aid can be granted in a writ petition to implement the order of the temporary injunction".

19. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the above law

annunciated in the above two judgments, this Court is of the

considered view that this writ petition is maintainable and that the

petitioner is entitled for police aid for effective implementation of the

temporary injunction order that was granted in favour of the

petitioner.

20. However, in view of the submission made by learned counsel

for the 4th respondent that he got strong case to succeed in the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal i.e. now pending on the file of learned VII

Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same is not being

disposed of and this order granting police aid, would cause detriment

to the interest and right of the 4th respondent in respect of the said

land, learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, is hereby

directed to dispose of the said C.M.A.No.3 of 2021, after hearing both

the parties, on merits, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date on which a copy of

this order is produced before the said Court, whichever is earlier.

This order granting police aid in this writ petition is subject to the

result of the said C.M.A.No.3 of 2021.

21. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed granting police aid in

favour of the petitioner as sought for and the respondent-police

2020 (4) ALT 62

officials shall provide necessary police aid for effective

implementation of the aforesaid temporary injunction order.

However, this order of granting police aid is subject to the result of

the C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional District

Judge, Kakinada. There shall be no costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 13-08-2021 ARR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.10881 OF 2021

Date : 13-08-2021

ARR