Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Morusu Sreeramulu Reddy vs Kareppagari Eswaraiah on 6 December, 2022

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2055 of 2022

   Between:

   Morusu      Sreeramulu      Reddy,      S/o
   M.Sreenivasulu Reddy, aged 40 years, Hindu,
   R/o    4    Kappalli,   Chembakur      Post,
   Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.
                                       ... Petitioner/Plaintiff.
              Versus

   Kareppagari Eswaraiah, S/o Kareppagari
   Chinna Redappa, aged about 48 years, Hindu,
   R/o    4   Kappalli,   Chembakur       Post,
   Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.
                                  ... Respondent/Defendant.

Counsel for the petitioner             : Ms.Ayesha Azma,
                                         representing Sri V.Nitesh

Counsel for respondent                 : Sri P.Vasu Sekhar

                              ORDER

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the

order dated 01.08.2022 in I.A.No.364 of 2022 in I.A.No.328 of

2020 in O.S.No.135 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Punganur.

2. Suit O.S.No.135 of 2020 was filed by plaintiff against

the defendant for perpetual injunction. Along with suit

I.A.No.328 of 2020 was filed and the trial Court by order

dated 04.01.2022 granted ad-interim injunction in favour of

plaintiff. By order dated 4-1-2022, trial court granted

temporary injunction.

3. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.364 of 2022 under Section 151 of

CPC for grant of police aid in implementing the order of

injunction on 07.03.2022.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was

contended interalia that plaintiff has been in possession and

enjoyment of the schedule property; that suit lands are

owned and possessed by father of plaintiff; that when the

father was in need of money, he borrowed amount from the

defendant and executed two sale deeds dated 15.09.2003 and

29.09.2003 as security instead of mortgage; that defendant

orally agreed to re-convey the property to the father; that as

per oral undertaking made by defendant, he executed sale

deed dated 10.01.2007 after receiving balance debt, in

respect of suit schedule property including other lands in

S.Nos.109/9, 109/12 and 110/4 and delivered possession;

that in view of sale deed dated 10.01.2007 executed by

defendant in favour of plaintiff, defendant ceased to have any

interest over the suit lands; that the revenue authorities also

issued pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of

plaintiff by updating the revenue records; that after grant of

temporary injunction when the plaintiff was carrying on

agriculture operations on 08.02.2022, respondent/defendant

along with his men beat the plaintiff, his mother and

grandmother and caused grievous injuries; that plaintiff

lodged a complaint with the police and the same was

registered as Crime No.20 of 2022 and Xerox of the F.I.R was

annexed to the affidavit and thus, sought for grant of police

aid to implement the order of temporary injunction.

5. Defendant/respondent filed counter and opposed the

application. While contending interalia, defendant also

pleaded that against the grant of temporary injunction,

appeal was filed and the same is pending.

6. By order dated 01.08.2022, trial Court dismissed the

application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel representing

Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.Vasu

Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that

pursuant to the temporary injunction when the plaintiff is

carrying on agricultural operations, defendant beat the

plaintiff, his mother and grandmother and the SHO,

Ramasamudram Police Station registered case in Crime

No.20 of 2022 for the offences under Section 447, 323, 324

r/w 34 of IPC. He would submit that application was filed for

grant of police aid to implement the order of injunction,

however the trial Court dismissed the same on the ground

that petitioner failed to prove that respondent violated or

prevented or obstructed enforcement of temporary injunction

observing that no material is placed before the Court. He

also would submit that, in fact, F.I.R No.20 of 2022 was filed

along with affidavit and the trial Court failed to consider the

same and thus, prayed to set aside the order of trial Court

and to grant police aid to implement temporary injunction.

9. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order of

the trial Court.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it in not granting police aid for implementing the order of temporary injunction granted by it on 04.01.2022 in I.A.No.328 of 2020?

11. When an order of temporary injunction has not been

obeyed and when the plaintiff complains that the defendant

committed breach of the said order and seeks police

protection, the Court is under an obligation to accord such

protection. In fact, granting police aid in implementing the

order of injunction would uphold the dignity and sanctity of

the order.

12. In Rayapati Audemma Vs. Pothineni Narasimham1,

on reference the Division Bench of the composite High Court

of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

"In view of these clear observations of their Lordships with regard to the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, Civil P. C. we are clearly of the opinion that in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the 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 Court or the exercise of the rights created under orders of court. That the police authorities owe a legal duty to the public to enforce the law is clear from a decision of the Court of Appeal, reported in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr. (1968) 1 All ER 763, where Lord Debning, M. R. observed at page 769 as follows:

hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of police, as it is of every chief constable to enforce the law of the land...............but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. The

AIR 1971 AP 53

responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone".

The same view was expressed by the other learned Judges. We may also refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court, in Varadachariar v. Commr. of Police (1969) 2 MLJ 1 where the learned Judge, Kailasam, J., after referring to the English case cited above held that the Commissioner of Police should proceed and act in accordance with the directions indicated in the aforesaid judgment.

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 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."

13. In Satyanarayana Tiwari Vs. S.H.O.P.S.

Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad and Ors.2, the Division Bench

of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

"No authority in the State, revenue or police, can ignore the finding of the Civil Court of refuse to take steps to see that the order of the Civil Court is implemented and the party, in whose favour there is the order of the Civil Court, gets all help to maintain the law and order and not allow the other party to contravene the injunction order and create law and order problem."

AIR 1982 AP 394

14. In the judgment referred supra, orders were passed

while entertaining the writ petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India to issue writ or direction to police to

enforce the order of civil Court to provide police protection in

furtherance of order of injunction, in the considered opinion

of this Court, the said observation equally applies to the

situation where a party approaches civil Court for police aid

to implement the order of injunction.

15. Even in the judgment relied on by the trial Court in

Polavarapu Nagamani and Ors. Vs. Parchuri Koteshwara

Rao and Ors.3, the Division Bench of the composite High

Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

(iii) 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 rights of the opposite party.

(iv) 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 probabilities.

2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB)

16. In Gampala Anthaiah and Ors. Vs. Kasarla Venkat

Reddy and Ors.4, learned single Judge of the composite High

Court of Andhra Pradesh while considering the judgment of

the Apex Court in Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi

[(2007) 12 SCC 201], came to the conclusion that insofar as

the observations of the Division Bench, that an application

for police protection is not maintainable if there is a violation

of an injunction order passed in a suit, has to be held to be

per incuriam.

17. In Meera Chauhan's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

thus:

"When parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order.

Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A question may arise whether such an application can be entertained by the Court when specific provision under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the

2014 (2) ALD 281 (AP)

form of mandatory order in the exercise of power under the said Order. Therefore to decide this aspect of the matter, let us consider the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 reads as under:

151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

A bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the code is not res integra now.

In Manohar Vs. Hira Lal : AIR 1962 SC 527 while dealing with the power of the Court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure.

At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly

dispossesses the other, the Court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged."

18. In P.R. Murlidharan and Ors. vs. Swami

Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Ors.5, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held thus:

"11. A Writ Petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a Writ Petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the Writ Petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a Writ Petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. (emphasis is mine)

13. 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

(2006) 4 SCC 501

unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order."

19. In Nirabai J. Patil Vs. Narayan D. Patil6, the Bombay

High Court held thus:

"If Civil Court which has passed the order of temporary injunction takes a view that there is no power vested in the Court to direct the police to grant assistance for enforcing or for implementation of the order of temporary injunction, the very purpose of granting order of temporary injunction may be frustrated in a given case. It is the duty of every police Officer to enforce the law of the land. The duties of police officers are reflected in Section 64 and Section 66 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that "There is no provision for police and for execution of interim order, is totally incorrect. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that he has a power under Section 151 of the said Code to pass the order directing that police help should be made available provided facts of the case warrant passing of such order."

20. In N. Karpagam and Ors. Vs. P. Deivanaiammal7, the

Madras High Court held thus:

6. It is also relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1992 TLNJ 120 (cited supra), wherein after considering the relevant provisions relating to grant of injunction and Section 151 C.P.C. the Bench has concluded that,

"In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions under Section 151 of the Code can be issued by the Civil Courts to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of

AIR 2004 BOM 225

AIR 2003 MAD 219

temporary injunction or a decree for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court."

It was further held thus:

"In appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power and is indeed under a duty, to issue suitable directions to police officials, as servants of law, to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of the Civil Courts or implementing an order of injunction passed by it."

21. Thus, the position of law emerges from the principles

laid down supra, powers conferred by virtue of Section 151 of

CPC to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of

justice or to prevent abuse of process of court. Section 151

does not confer any powers, but only indicates that there is a

power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends

of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court. The

inherent power has not been conferred on the court, it is a

power inherent in the court by virtue of its duty to do justice

between the parties before.

22. In the case on hand, a perusal of order of the trial

Court would indicate that temporary injunction was granted

in favour of petitioner in I.A.No.328 of 2020 on 04.01.2022.

Suit schedule property described in the plaint is an extent of

Ac.0.34 cents in S.No.137/4; Ac.0.24 cents in S.No.111/1;

Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.132/4 & Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.132/6.

A perusal of F.I.R No.20 of 2022 dated 08.02.2022 would

indicate that at about 2.30 p.m. A-1 i.e. defendant in the suit

along with others threw down the plaintiff and beat him with

sticks and caused injuries on his hip by trespassing into his

fields. Even the mother and grandmother also sustained

injuries. Copy of the F.I.R was filed along with application

seeking grant of police aid for implementing the order of

injunction.

23. Trial Court by placing reliance upon Polavarapu

Nagamani's case, came to the conclusion that standard of

proof required in the case of threat or 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 probabilities. Trial Court further

observed that the petitioner has not placed any material

except his affidavit to prove that the respondent has violated

or prevented or obstructed the enforcement of temporary

injunction.

24. Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, failed to take

note of F.I.R registered by the police against the defendant

and others. In fact, copy of FIR was filed along with

interlocutory application. Trial Court on being satisfied with

the conditions prescribed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of CPC

regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable loss, granted temporary injunction, ought to have

exercised jurisdiction and ordered police aid in implementing

the injunction. Though there is no specific provision under

the Code for implementing the order of temporary injunction,

as observed supra, the Court has got power under Section

151 of CPC to pass such orders as may be necessary for the

ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of court.

25. In the case on hand, notwithstanding the copy of F.I.R

filed along with affidavit, trial Court failed to take note of the

same into consideration and concluded that plaintiff failed to

prove that respondent violated the order of injunction.

However as discussed supra, F.I.R filed along with I.A., would

prima facie indicate that defendant along with others

breached the order of injunction and hence, petition filed by

the plaintiff seeking police aid to implement the order of

injunction, ought to have been granted by the trial Court.

26. In Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal corporation of

Delhi and Ors.8, while dealing with scope and ambit of

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held thus:

25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India had been discussed in the case of The Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it was observed as follows:

The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of

(2010) 9 SCC 385

facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.

27. In view of expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra,

since the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with

it, this court exercising powers vested with under Article 227

of the Constitution of India inclined to set aside the order

passed by trial Court.

28. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and

the order dated 01.08.2022 in I.A.No.364 of 2022 in

I.A.No.328 of 2020 in O.S.No.135 of 2020 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur is set aside.

I.A.No.364 of 2022 is allowed granting police aid for

implementing the order of injunction granted in I.A.No.328 of

2020 dated 04.01.2022. No costs.