P.Raghunatha Reddy, vs P.Jyotheeswari
2022 Latest Caselaw 5256 AP

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

               CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1423 of 2021

ORDER:

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against an

Order dated 08.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.611 of 2019 in I.A.No.11 of

2016 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

2. Heard Mr.M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs.Y.Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the

respondents.

3. The petitioner herein filed the above referred suit seeking a

decree for declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property

and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants,

their men etc. from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the schedule property. Along with the suit, the

petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.11 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction

restraining the respondents/defendants, their men etc. from interfering

with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

petition/suit schedule property. By an Order dated 20.09.2019, the

learned Trial Court after hearing both sides granted an Order of

injunction. Alleging that despite the said Orders dated 20.09.2019, the

respondents/defendants are interfering with the petitioner's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by picking

up quarrels everyday at the field and trying to encroach into the suit

land and dispossess the petitioner, an application in I.A.No.611 of 2019

was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking police aid for

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

implementation of the Orders of injunction dated 20.09.2019 passed in

I.A.No.11 of 2016. The said application was opposed by the

respondents/defendants by filing a counter. The learned Trial Judge

after considering the matter, while opining that the petitioner/plaintiff

did not produce any material to substantiate his case that the

respondents/defendants are trying to dispossess him and that the grant

of police aid is an extreme step and unless the Court is fully satisfied

about the existence of grave emergency, was not inclined to grant the

relief sought for and dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel while reiterating the several grounds urged

in the Revision Petition inter alia submits that the learned Trial Court

failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and committed material

irregularities and therefore the Order under challenge is liable to be

interfered with. He submits that an Order of injunction was granted in

favour of the petitioner/plaintiff after hearing both sides and in such

circumstances, when there is a serious threat with regard to

interference of the respondents/defendants with the

petitioner/plaintiff's possession, the learned Trial Court ought to have

taken into considering the specific averments made on oath in the

affidavit filed in support of the application seeking police aid, instead of

dismissing the same on the ground that no material is placed in support

of the petitioner/plaintiff's allegations. The learned counsel strenuously

contends that the sanctity of the Orders passed by the Courts have to

be maintained and the same cannot be allowed to be flouted by

denying the police-aid on mere technicalities. While contending that the

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

decision in Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao and Others v. Bommaji

Danam and Others1 on which the learned Trial Court has placed

reliance for dismissing the application seeking police-aid is

distinguishable, the learned counsel would urge that the learned Trial

Court ought to have followed the principle laid down in the decision of

Sama Jana Reddy v. Muppa Narasimha Reddy2.

5. The learned counsel would further urge that the Order of the

learned Trial Court is also not sustainable as it failed to take into

consideration the written arguments submitted on behalf of the

petitioner/plaintiff along with the relevant Case Law for arriving at just

conclusions. He also places reliance on the decisions reported in Kotak

Mahindra Bank Limited v. Station House Officer, Madhapur

P.S., Hyderabad and Others3, P.Shanker Rao v.

Smt.B.Susheela4, unreported decision in Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy

v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

supported the Order under challenge inter alia contending that there is

no material irregularity or perversity in the same. She submits that in

the affidavit filed in support of the I.A seeking police-aid, no specific

time, date or incident were mentioned, except making certain vague

allegations that the respondents/defendants are trying to interfere with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. She submits

that the allegations made by the petitioner were specifically denied in

the counter and after appreciating the matter, the learned Trial Court

1 2014 (2) ALT 319 2 2017(2) ALD 584 3 2016 (2) ALT 164 4 2000 (2) ALD 147

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

had rightly dismissed the application for police-aid, as no material was

placed before it, warranting grant of the same. She further submits that

the police-aid cannot be granted for mere asking and unless the pre-

requisites are satisfied, the same cannot be granted. That in any event,

the Order of the learned Trial Court warrants no interference under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the view taken by it, in the

facts and circumstances, cannot be found fault with. In support of the

contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in

Polavarapu Nagamani and Ors., v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao

and Others5 and Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao (referred to 1 supra)

etc., and seeks to dismiss the Revision Petition.

7. On a consideration of the rival contentions, perusal of the

material available on record and the decisions relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the point that falls for consideration by this

Court is as to "Whether the Order under Revision is not sustainable and

warrants interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article

227 of the Constitution of India?"

8. Before dealing with the respective contentions, it may be noted

that there is no dispute that an Order of temporary injunction was

granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by an Order dated

20.09.2019 in I.A.No.11 of 2016, on contest. It is also not in dispute

that the said Order has not been challenged by the

respondents/defendants. When such is the undisputed position, the

main submission in essence, of the learned counsel for the petitioner is,

5 2010(2) ALD 41

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

that it is the duty of the Court to protect its own majesty by enforcing

the orders granted by it.

9. In Kotak Mahindra Bank's case referred to supra, a Division

Bench of the erstwhile Common High Court for the State of Telangana

and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, was dealing with a

Writ Petition, wherein the writ petitioner-bank sought a Writ of

Mandamus against the respondent-police to take steps for putting it in

the absolute control of a land in furtherance of the acts initiated by it

under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short

'SARFAESI Act'). The Hon'ble Division Bench while discussing the power

of the Civil Court to direct the police officers to provide assistance in

the execution of Orders or Decrees as also the power of High Court to

command police-aid in enforcement of its orders, allowed the Writ

Petitions by exercising it's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the said

case.

10. In the case of Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy referred to supra,

while directing police-aid in favour of the Writ Petitioner, a learned

Judge of this Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

P.R.Murlidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha

Padar(reported in 2006 (4) SCC 501), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at Para No.19 held thus:

"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

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

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."

11. In P.Shanker Rao's case referred to supra, a learned Judge of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad was dealing

with a Civil Revision Petition filed against an Order granting police-aid

for implementation of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court.

The learned Judge while observing that in a fit case, the Court can

undoubtedly direct police-aid as a preventive measure, was not

inclined to interfere with the order granting police-aid, in the facts and

circumstances of the said case. However, the learned Judge observed

that the police-aid should not be granted for mere asking and the Court

has to be satisfied, prima facie, that there is an imminent threat of

violation of interim order, if police does not intervene and that there is

no other way of ensuring effective compliance.

12. In Ramulugari Ahobulappa and Others v. Talari Sridevi6, a

learned Judge of the erstwhile Common High Court for the State of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a Revision filed

against an Order granting police-aid for implementing the order of

exparte injunction. The learned Judge taking note of the fact that the

petitioners/defendants have taken as many as eight months for filing

petition to set aside the ex parte order and did not chose to file the

counter to the I.A seeking police-aid, opined that the Order granting

police-aid warrants no interference. The learned Judge also observed

that it is the duty of the Court to protect it's own majesty by enforcing

orders granted by it.

6 LAWS(APH) 2018 8 44

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

13. In Bijiga Papa Rao and others v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa

Rao7, relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, a learned Judge of

the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, after referring to a catena of cases, inter

alia held that police-aid can be granted in deserving and appropriate

cases under Section 151 of C.P.C. At Para No.17, the learned Judge

while not interfering with the Order granting police-aid held as follows:

"17. It is required to be noted that the ultimate endeavour of the Courts should be in the direction of the upholding the majesty of the Courts and safeguarding the sanctity of the orders and decrees of the Courts from being invaded and flouted in the name of lame, feeble and unreasonable excuses and explanations and in the name of unsustainable technicalities. In the instant case, the petitioners herein, having suffered an order of injunction and having suffered an order of injunction and having failed to assail the same, are attempting to take shelter in the guise of pendency of suit, O.S.No.88 of 2013, and in the considered view of this Court, the same is not tenable in the absence of any order in their favour. The efforts of the Courts should necessarily be in the direction of creating confidence in the people in the system and the same cannot be achieved without respect to the rule of finality........"

14. In Sama Jana Reddy(referred to 2 supra), a learned Judge of

the Common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, found fault with the order

of the Trial Court dismissing the application seeking police-aid and set

aside the same, after referring to a fleet of decisions. It is contextual

to refer to para No.14 of the decision of the learned Single Judge,

which reads thus:

7 2015(2) ALD 171

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

"14. Another Single Judge expression of this Court in Gampala Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy and others, 2014(2) ALD 681=2014(2) ALT 661, referring to all the expressions covered by Yarlagunta Bhakara Rao's case (supra) same learned Judge who dealt with the case observed that, even in cases where there is a violation of an injunction order in a suit as opposed to a situation where only a threat of violation exists, orders of police protection may be granted, if the rights of parties are determined either finally in the suit or atleast at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner and there other decision referred additionally in Neetha Chintawar and another v. Bodugam Gopi, 2006(5) ALD 95, that the very grant of an order for temporary injunction passed by the Court on contest from satisfaction of existence of prima facie possession of the plaintiff over the suit property with balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff, who suffer irreparable loss, according protection for such finding of possession, pending disposal of the suit, police aid can be granted and if at all the defendant is aggrieved, his remedy is to file an appeal against the order granting injunction and without modification of which he cannot be permitted to plead that plaintiff is not in possession."

15. In Yarlagunta Bhaskara Rao referred to supra by both the

learned counsel, the learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of

Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, after

referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera

Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, [(2007) 12 SCC 201], Manohar Lal Chopra v.

Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527], P.R.Muralidharan

and others v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others,

[(2006) 4 SCC 501] as also decisions of the Division Bench of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Satyanarayana Tiwari v.

SHO, PS, Santoshnagar [AIR 1982 AP 394] and Polavarapu Nagamani

and others v. Parchuri Koteswara Rao and others [2010(2) ALD 41] was

not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

granting police-aid in favour of the plaintiff, who obtained an order of

ad interim injunction. The learned Judge while opining, inter alia, that

the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani

(referred to 5 supra) is per in curiam as the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court were not noticed, but concurred with view of the said

Division Bench that when a petition is filed seeking police protection,

such order cannot be passed in a routine manner and high degree of

proof is necessary.

16. In Polavarapu Nagamani's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble

Division Bench inter alia held that

(a) ...........

(b) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.

(c) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.

(d) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on possibilities.

17. Referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

Hon'ble Division Bench further observed that in all cases of contempt

the plea should be proved applying very high standard of proof not

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking

intervention of the Court and in the facts and circumstances of the

case, set aside the order of the Trial Court granting police protection.

18. In an earlier decision, the learned Judges in Rayapati

Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham8, after referring to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar

Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 218] at para No.8 held that "in order to do

justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of Court,

the Civil Courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police

authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to the

implementation of the orders of the Court or exercise of the rights

created under the Orders of the Court."

19. The Hon'ble Division Bench at para No.9 further held as follows:

"If the police authorities are under a legal duty to enforce the law and the public or the citizens are entitled to seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution for discharge of such duties by the police authorities, we feel that the Civil Courts can also give appropriate directions under Section 151 Civil P.C. to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the Orders of the Court. It cannot be said that in such a case the exercise of the inherent power under Section 151 Civil P.C. is devoid of jurisdiction. There is no express provision in the Code prohibiting the exercise of such a power and the Court can give appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved parties to the police authorities to render its aid for enforcement of the Court's order in a lawful manner."

20. The legal position, as culled out from the above decisions would

go to show that the police-aid for implementation of temporary

8 AIR 1971 AP 53

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

injunction can be granted in exercise of powers under Section 151 of

C.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the given case.

21. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that

the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., seeking police-aid is vague and

lacking in material particulars as to the interference of the petitioner's

possession, no much significance can be attached to the same, more

particularly in view of the categorical findings recorded by the learned

Trial Court while granting temporary injunction vide Orders dated

20.09.2019 in I.A.No.11 of 2016, the relevant portion of which reads as

follows:

"v) In view of the above discussion, Exs.P2 to P4 clearly shows that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties and he has got prima facie case. The Exs.R3 to R5 doesn't show that the respondents property are situated within the petition schedule properties and the respondents have also not filed any revenue records to show their possession over their properties. The allegations raised by the respondents have to be proved by the defendants themselves. Hence, this Court come to indomitable conclusion that the petitioner is showing his prima facie possession over the petition schedule properties and balance of convenience tilt more on behalf of the petitioner. If injunction is not granted it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner which cannot be compensated by way of money as the petitioner has filed revenue records to show his possession over the petition schedule properties. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner."

22. As noted earlier, the said Order remained unchallenged. In such

circumstances, the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court is

entitled to protect his possession and seek police-aid in order to contain

any attempts being made to interfere with his possession by the

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

opposite party. Though the learned Trial Court had relied on the

decision of Yarlaganta Bhaskara Rao referred to supra, while

dismissing the petition inter alia on the premise that except the affidavit

of the petitioners/plaintiffs, no proof was produced to substantiate the

pleading of the petitioner/plaintiff, in the considered opinion of this

Court, it ought to have taken into account the detailed order granting

temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and exercised the

powers under Section 151 of C.P.C., as it is also duty of the Court to

protect it's own orders as held in Bijiga Papa Rao's case and

Ramulugari Ahobulappa's case referred to supra. Therefore, the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents are

rejected.

23. Though in each and every case where an exparte interim

injunction is obtained, police-aid need not invariably be granted on

mere asking, this Court is of the opinion that the facts and

circumstances are required to be taken into consideration. In

deserving cases, police-aid can be granted to sub-serve the ends of

justice. As opined by a learned Judge of the High Court for the State of

Telangana in Talla Srinivas Goud v. Ghanapuram Srinivas

Reddy9, 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.

24. In the attending facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the

9 2022(1) ALD 501

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

jurisdiction vested in it in a proper perspective by taking the relevant

factual and the legal position into account and the impugned order,

therefore is liable to be interfered with, in exercise of powers under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

25. Accordingly, the Order dated 08.11.2021 is set aside and

I.A.No.611 of 2019 in I.A.No.11 of 2016 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 on the file

of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, stands allowed.

Keeping in view that the suit is of the year 2016, this Court also deems

it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of four (4)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time,

the petitioner/plaintiff shall not to change the nature of land. No order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 18.08.2022 BLV

NJS, J crp_1423_2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Civil Revision Petition No.1423 of 2021 Dated 18.08.2022

BLV