Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vishwanatharn Pedda Kondaiah vs The Station House Officer, on 26 August, 2022
1
CMR, J.
W.P.No.23073 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.23073 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action
of respondents 1 to 4 police officials in refusing to continue the
police assistance to the petitioner as per the orders, passed by the
trial Court i.e. the V Additional District Judge, Allagadda, in I.A.
No.507 of 2021 in I.A.No.311 of 2021 in O.S.No.7 of 2021, dated
27.08.2021, and the consequential common orders in C.M.A.
No.210 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.213 of 2021, dated 22.02.2022,
passed by the High Court of A.P., as illegal and consequently,
sought direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to continue the police
assistance to the petitioner as per the aforesaid order passed by
the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for
respondents 1 to 5.
3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house property
in question. Admittedly, the said house was leased out to the 6 th
respondent. Alleging that the 6th respondent has vacated the said
house property, and that thereafter, again he is interfering with
the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said property, the
petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the V
Additional District Judge, Allagadda. Alongside the Suit, he has
filed I.A.No.311 of 2021 for temporary injunction. Initially,
temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and
CMR, J.
W.P.No.23073 of 2022
against the 6th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.507 of 2021 for grant of police aid for effective
implementation of the said temporary injunction order. The trial
Court allowed the said petition and granted police aid. The 6 th
respondent preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.213
of 2021 challenging the said order of temporary injunction. The
6th respondent also filed Suit for permanent injunction against the
petitioner. He also sought for temporary injunction, which was
rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, he also filed C.M.A.No.210
of 2021. Both the said C.M.A.Nos.213 and 210 of 2021 were
heard together by this Court and disposed of the said C.M.As. by a
common order, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, dated 22.02.2022. The Division Bench of this Court while
disposing of the said C.M.As, has set aside the order dated
26.07.2021 of the trial Court granting temporary injunction in
favour of the petitioner. However, the High Court ordered to
maintain status quo as on that day in respect of the petition
schedule property.
4. Therefore, it is evident that the temporary injunction that
was granted in favour of the petitioner by the trial Court in
I.A.No.311 of 2021 in O.S.No.7 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021, was set
aside by this Court in the above C.M.As. Therefore, the order
granting police aid in I.A.No.507 of 2021 also co-terminates along
with the order setting aside the temporary injunction order. So, it
cannot be said that the order of granting police aid by the trial
Court is in force.
CMR, J.
W.P.No.23073 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as
this Court ordered to maintain status quo as on the date of the
order passed in C.M.As, it shall be construed that the police aid
granted by the trial Court continues. The said contention has no
merit. The said order granting police aid co-terminates along with
the temporary injunction order, dated 26.07.2021, passed in
favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any
police aid in this Writ Petition on the basis of the temporary
injunction order that was earlier granted which stood set aside in
the above C.M.As. Moreover, it is important to note that the
Division Bench of this Court at para.11 of the common order,
dated 22.02.2022, recording a finding that the appellant therein,
who is the respondent in I.A.No.311 of 2021 in O.S.No.7 of 2021
i.e. the tenant, is in possession of the petition schedule property,
as a lessee by running the ginning mill in the said property as on
the date of institution of the said Suit. The Division Bench of this
Court held at para.11 of the said common order, as follows:
"11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the prima facie view
that the appellant is in possession of the petition schedule property
as a lessee by running the ginning mill over the said property as on
the date of the institution of the suit."
6. Therefore, it is now evident that as per the finding recorded
by the Division Bench of this Court, the 6th respondent has been
in possession of the said property as a lessee and running a
ginning mill in the said property. When that be the clear finding
of the Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any police aid.
7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
CMR, J.
W.P.No.23073 of 2022
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:26.08.2022.
cs
