Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Veeragandham Sresta Ramesh, vs Dwarapureddi Ramamohana Rao, on 2 February, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.288 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners had filed O.S.No.131 of 2019 in the Court
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Parvathipuram against the respondents herein seeking a
permanent injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the suit
schedule property. The petitioners had filed I.A.No.345 of 2019
for grant of interim injunction pending the suit and the same was
granted, after contest, by an order, dated 26.11.2019.
Thereafter, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.35 of 2020 in
I.A.No.345 of 2019 for grant of police protection on the ground
that the respondents were disobeying the injunction order
granted by the Court.
2. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said
application by an order, dated 12.03.2020. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the
present revision petition.
3. The trial Court had dismissed the application of the
petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, the trial Court relying upon a
judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported as Polavarapu Nagamani and
others vs. Parchuri Koteswara Rao and others1 had held
that the only application permissible, upon violation of a
2010 (10) ALD page 41
temporary injunction, is an application under Order 39 Rule 2(A)
CPC for punishing the respondents, who have violated the orders
of injunction and an application for police aid is not
maintainable. Secondly, the trial Court had held that the
petitioners had not placed any material to show that the
respondents had been violating the injunction granted by the
Trial Court.
4. Heard Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
5. It is the case of Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao that an
application for grant of police protection is permissible and relies
upon a judgment of learned single Judge of the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh reported as Gampala Anthaiah and
others vs. Kasarla Venkat Reddy2 to contend that application
for police protection is permissible in the event of any violation
of the injunction order. He further submits that the trial Court
took into account certain suits which had been filed by the
mothers and sisters of the respondents and the interim orders
granted therein to come to a conclusion that there was no
violation of the orders of the injunction. He further submits that
interim injunctions granted in those cases have been dismissed.
He would also submit that the petitioners have been filing police
complaints before the police about the various acts of violation of
(2014) 2 ALD page 281:(2014) 2 ALT page 661
the injunction order against the respondents. He fairly
concedes that these complaints have not been placed before the
trial Court and that most of the complaints had been filed after
dismissal of the application by the trial Court.
6. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondents,
would submit that in view of the finding of the trial Court,
nothing has been placed before the Court demonstrating
violation of the orders of the injunction, there is no necessity for
any interference by this Court as the preliminary requirement of
violation of the interim injunction had not been made out by the
petitioners.
7. It is true that a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in Polavarapu Nagamani's case had held
that the person obtaining an injunction would not be entitled to
move an application for police protection in the event of a
violation of the said injunction. However, a learned single Judge
of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gampala
Anthaiah's case had held that in view of the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan vs. Harsh Bishnoi3
and P.R.Muralidharan and others vs. Swamy Dharmananda
Theertha Padar and others4, a person would be entitled to
police protection where there is violation of a decree or an
injunction granted in his favour. The learned single Judge held
that the Division Bench judgment in Polavarapu Nagamani's
(2007) 12 SCC page 201
(2006) 4 SCC page 501
case has to be held as per incuriam as the aforesaid two
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been placed
before the Division Bench. I am in respectful agreement with the
views expressed by the learned single Judge and hold that in the
event of violation of an injunction, the person, who had obtained
the said injunction, would be entitled to move for police
protection.
8. As far as the facts are concerned, a perusal of the material
placed before this Court does not give rise to any reason for this
Court to differ with the view of the trial Court that no material
had been placed before the trial Court demonstrating violation of
the injunction order by the respondents. However, in view of
the submissions made by Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao that there
is adequate material to prove the allegations in the applications,
it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the trial Court,
dated 12.03.2020 in I.A.No.35 of 2020 in I.A.No.345 of 2019 in
O.S.No.131 of 2019 and remand the same back to the trial Court
for a fresh adjudication. Needless to say, both the petitioners
and the respondents would be entitled to raise such fresh pleas
and place such material as they may deem fit before the trial
Court.
9. The trial Court shall dispose of the said application at the
earliest and preferably within three months from the date of
receipt of this order.
10. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 02.02.2022
SPP
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.288 of 2021
Date : 02.02.2022
SPP
