Bellamkonda Chidambaram Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3274 AP

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    Writ Petition No.25686 of 2021

Order:

       This writ petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the

action of the respondents 2 to 4-Police officials in not providing

police-aid for effective implementation of the permanent injunction

decree dated 02-3-2020 passed in counter claim in O.S.No.973 of

1997     on   the    file   of   the   Principal   Senior   Civil   Judge,

Visakhapatnam, in respect of the property covered by T.S.

No.1096, in an extent of Ac.3.10 cents of Bheemunipatnam,

as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondents 2 to 4

to provide police-aid to the petitioners in respect of the said

property.

       2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for

Home appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri B.V.

Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-

Trust.

       3. Originally, a suit for declaration was filed by the

5th respondent-Trust, represented by its Chairman, against

certain defendants in O.S.No.973 of 1997 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in respect of the

property covered by T.S.No.1096, in an extent of Ac.3.10 cents of

Bheemunipatnam. The petitioners have filed a petition to implead

them as defendants in the said suit. The said petition was allowed

and the petitioners were impleaded as defendants 21 to 24 in the
                                    2




said suit. Thereafter, they have filed a counter claim in the said

suit seeking decree for permanent injunction against the plaintiff

in the said suit, who is the 5th respondent herein and also the

other defendants in the said suit.         The said suit filed by the

5th respondent was dismissed.          The counter claim filed by the

petitioners was allowed and a permanent injunction decree was

passed in favour of the petitioners herein and against the

5th respondent, who is the plaintiff in the said suit and against the

defendants 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 20, 25 and 26 therein restraining

them, their men and agents from interfering with the possession

and enjoyment of the petitioners herein in respect of the said

property.

      4. The said decree of permanent injunction in the said

counter claim filed by the petitioners herein was passed as per the

judgment and decree dated 02-3-2020.              The 5th respondent

herein, who is the plaintiff or the other defendants who suffered

the said decree for permanent injunction, did not challenge the

said decree by way of preferring any appeal. Therefore, the said

decree of permanent injunction became final.

      5. Now, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that despite

the said decree of permanent injunction passed in their favour

and against the 5th respondent herein and other defendants, the

5th respondent has been still interfering with the possession of the

petitioners in respect of the said property and when they

approached the respondent-Police officials seeking police-aid for

effective   implementation   of   the    said   decree   of   permanent
                                     3




injunction that they are not providing any police-aid. Therefore,

they are before this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking

the aforesaid relief.

      6.   Learned      Assistant   Government       Pleader     for   Home

appearing    for     the   respondents     2    to    4-Police     officials,

on   instructions,      would   submit   that   when     the     petitioners

approached the Police with a request to provide police-aid for

implementation of the said decree of permanent injunction that

as the dispute is of civil nature, the Police advised them to obtain

orders from the Court for grant of police-aid. So, he would submit

that if the competent Court directs the Police to provide police-aid

for implementation of the said decree of permanent injunction

that the Police would provide police-aid to the petitioners.

      7. The 5th respondent filed counter stating that the suit filed

by the 5th respondent-Trust for declaration was dismissed on the

ground that the person, by name T.D.S. Kumar, who represented

the plaintiff-Trust in the said suit, was not competent to represent

the said Trust. A finding to that effect was also recorded by the

trial Court in the judgment. Therefore, it is pleaded that when the

said suit was dismissed on a technical ground that the person,

who represented the Trust in the said suit, is not competent to

represent the said Trust and file the suit, the said decree of

permanent injunction is not binding on the Trust which was not

properly represented in the said suit. Therefore, it is stated that

the decree cannot be implemented against the Trust on the basis

of the said decree of permanent injunction that was granted in the
                                       4




counter   claim.      So,   precisely     on   the   said   ground,    the

5th respondent sought dismissal of the writ petition.

      8. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent also would submit

that when the Trust was not properly represented in the suit by

a competent person and when the said suit was dismissed on the

ground that the said T.D.S. Kumar, who filed the said suit

representing the said Trust, is not competent to represent the

Trust, the said decree passed against a Trust is not binding on the

Trust and the aforesaid permanent injunction decree cannot be

implemented against the 5th respondent-Trust. So, he would pray

for dismissal of the writ petition.

      9. Admittedly, the counter claim filed by the petitioners in

the suit in O.S.No.973 of 1997 was allowed and a decree for

permanent injunction was passed in their favour and against the

5th respondent-Trust and other defendants in the said suit.

The 5th respondent herein or any other defendants against whom

the said decree of permanent injunction was passed, did not

challenge the said decree by way of filing any appeal.           So, the

decree that was passed long back on 02-3-2020 against the

5th respondent herein and other defendants became final.              Now,

it is the case of the 5th respondent herein that the Trust was not

properly represented by a competent person in the said suit and

as the said suit was dismissed on that ground that the said decree

is not binding on the Trust. The Trust ought to have challenged

the present permanent injunction decree that was passed against

the 5th respondent herein and other defendants in the counter
                                        5




claim filed by the petitioners herein in the said suit, if it is

aggrieved by the said decree on the aforesaid ground which is now

urged.   Having not challenged the said decree of permanent

injunction, it is not open to the 5th respondent herein to question

the validity of the said decree in this writ petition. So, the validity

of the decree that was passed against the 5th respondent herein

cannot be considered in this writ petition.                Undoubtedly, the

decree of permanent injunction became final and it is now binding

on the 5th respondent herein. So, when it is the grievance of the

writ petitioner that the 5th respondent herein, in violation of the

decree of permanent injunction, has been interfering with their

right, possession and enjoyment in respect of the said property,

the   petitioners    are    entitled       for   police-aid    for   effective

implementation of the said permanent injunction decree passed

by a competent Civil Court.                The objection raised by the

5th respondent in this writ petition opposing the prayer of the

petitioners to grant police-aid to implement the said permanent

injunction decree is not tenable and it is legally unsustainable.

      10. It is well settled law now that when a permanent

injunction decree was passed by a competent Civil Court, police-

aid can be granted for effective implementation of the said

judgment and decree which became final.

      11. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the

respondents 2 to 4-Police officials to consider the representation of

the petitioners and grant adequate police-aid/protection to the

petitioners   for   effective   implementation        of    the   permanent
                                  6




injunction decree dated 02-3-2020 passed in counter claim in

O.S.No.973 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.


                        _________________________________________
                        CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

04th July, 2022. Ak

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Writ Petition No.25686 of 2021

04th July, 2022.

(Ak)