Telangana High Court
M/S Senthan Properties vs M/S S.V.S Infra Services Pvt Ltd on 21 January, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1173 OF 2020
Between:
M/s. Senthan Properties
....Petitioner
And
M/s. S.V.S.Infra Services Pvt Ltd.
....Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.01.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
2
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1173 OF 2020
% DATED 21st JANUARY, 2021
# M/s. Senthan Properties
... Petitioner
Vs.
$ M/s. S.V.S.Infra Services Pvt Ltd
.. Respondent
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner Sri J.C.Francis
^Counsel for the Respondent Ms. G.Vivekanand
? CASES REFERRED:
1 2008 (6) ALD 90
2 2018 (6) ALT 778 (S.B)
3 2004 (4) ALT 267 (S.B)
4 AIR 1999 Ker 383
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CRP No.1173 OF 2020
ORDER:
1 The order dated 12.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2020
in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 in O.S.No.318 of 2019 on the file of the
Court of the Principal District Judge, Medak, is under challenge
in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, whereby the learned District Judge
allowed the I.A.No.1671 of 2019 granting police aid to the
petitioner/plaintiff.
2 The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision
Petition, in nutshell, are that first respondent herein filed
O.S.No.318 of 2019 stating that the second respondent herein
in the capacity of proprietor of the petitioner herein offered to
sell plaint A schedule property admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas
(Plaint A schedule property) for a total sum of Rs.26,86,50,000/-
and accordingly the first respondent entered into an agreement
of sale with the second respondent dated 14.4.2019 by paying
Rs.4,25,00,000/- to the second respondent towards advance
sale consideration agreeing to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.22,61,50,000/- within three months. The
first respondent was ready with the balance sale consideration
by 15.6.2019 to get the property registered in his name, though
he has three months time, and he informed the same to the
second respondent and requested to conduct a government
survey and physical measurement of the property and for
fixation of boundaries, which the second respondent failed to
do. Instead, the second respondent requested the first
respondent to purchase part of land admeasuring Ac.3-00 out of
total land admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas (Plaint B Schedule
property) by paying sale consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/- as
he was in urgent need of money and undertook to conduct the
survey and fix the boundaries of plaint A schedule property
later. The first respondent agreed for the same and obtained
Agreement of sale cum AGPA with possession bearing
D.No.30288/2019 dated 21.6.2019 in his favour towards the
Western side of the plaint A schedule property. The first
respondent paid the entire sale consideration of
Rs.16,20,00,000/- to the second respondent.
The first respondent further stated that in spite of several
requests made by him, the second respondent did not take steps
to conduct survey of the plaint A schedule property and to fix
boundaries. On 15.12.2019 the first respondent demanded the
second respondent to execute and register sale deed in his
favour for the remaining extent of Ac.1-39 guntas (Plaint C
schedule property) and expressed his readiness with the balance
sale consideration of Rs.10,66,50,000/- to which the second
respondent stated that he has already sold the plaint C
schedule property in favour of third parties. Whereupon the first
respondent made enquiries and obtained encumbrance
certificate from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy and
came to know that the second respondent executed an
agreement of sale cum GPA dated 08.11.2019 and sale deed
dated 16.11.2019 in respect of the plaint C schedule property in
favour of petitioner herein, who in turn created false and bogus
sale deed bearing Doc.No.48684/2019 dated 16.11.2019 in
favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. The second
respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the initial
agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019 and by suppressing the same
the second respondent created bogus sale deed.
The allegation of the first respondent was that suppressing
the original agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019, the respondent
Nos.3 to 6 are now trying to alienate the plaint C schedule
property in favour of third parties basing on the bogus sale deed
dated 16.11.2019 to cause loss to the first respondent and that
they are also trying to change the nature of the plaint C
schedule property. Therefore, the first respondent filed
I.A.No.1671 of 2019, in which the trial Court granted ad-interim
injunction in favour of the first respondent. While so on
29.7.2020 and 31.7.2020 the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and their
henchmen came to the plaint C schedule property and
destroyed the existing roads high handedly and tried to level the
land and lay new roads and they also threatened the first
respondent. Therefore, being frightened and in order to preserve
the plaint C schedule property the first respondent filed
I.A.No.430 of 2020 for implementation of the ad-inteirm order
dated 20.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 and to grant
police aid / assistance, restraining the respondent Nos.3 to 6
and their agents from changing the nature of the plaint C
schedule property, which has been extended from time to time.
3 The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed their counter denying the
material averments made in the affidavit stating that the second
respondent conveyed the property in their favour and that as
the order passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 is not subsisting,
question of according police aid does not arise and that they
have not violated the order dated 20.12.2019.
4 The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for both
parties ordered the I.A.No.430 of 2020 directing the Police
Ameenpur to provide necessary aid to the first respondent /
plaintiff whenever need arises for effective implementation of the
ad interim order dated 20.12.2019 in I.A.No.1671 of 2019, which
is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 was only an ad interim
order and unless and until the ad interim order became final in
favour of the party who obtained such order, the Court cannot
grant police aid. The learned counsel relied on the ratio laid
down in Kasturi Venkata Subbaiah and others V. Veerapareddy
Yasodamma1, Gangupanthula Ranaga Rao V. Bathula Laxmaiah
and others2 and Vanga Buchi Reddy V. Vanga Madhusudhan
Reddy3 in support of his contention.
1 2008 (6) ALD 90
2 2018 (6) ALT 778 (S.B)
3 2004 (4) ALT 267 (S.B)
6 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that since the respondents 3 to 6 are
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first
respondent over the suit schedule property in violation of the ex
parte interim order, the first respondent was constrained to file
I.A.430 of 2020, which the trial Court allowed and ordered
police aid and that the order impugned is strictly in accordance
with law and there is neither material irregularity nor illegality
nor any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the present
revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7 In the above background, now the point which this Court
is called upon to answer is whether the order under revision in
granting police aid at the stage of ad-interim injunction is
correct?
8 It is an admitted fact that the impugned order is an ad
interim order. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner
herein had filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court
challenging the ad interim order passed by the Court below in
I.A.No.1671 of 2019. Of course, the said Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Unless and until the
interim injunction is made absolute and the rights of the parties
are crystallized, the Court cannot normally order police aid
petition because the party in whose favour the ad interim order
was granted may take advantage of the situation and under the
guise of the said order that party may cause undue hardship to
the other party. Such is the ratio decidendi in all the cases cites
supra. If the petitioner herein against whom an order of ex
parte injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction,
the first respondent can take recourse to file a petition under
Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC, which lays down a punitive measure
for the purpose of compelling a party to comply with the order of
injunction. But the Court cannot straight away order police aid
petition without disposing of the interim injunction petition
because granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction
may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the opposite
party, without hearing whom an injunction was granted against
him. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court
below was in error in passing orders on the petition for police
aid, without disposing of I.A.No.1671 of 2019 on merits.
9 In Adhikarath Valappil ... vs Korath Illath Valappil
Mammi4 the Kerala High Court held as under:
We are of the view that this Court shall not interfere in
matters involving civil rights with an order of police protection
on the basis of an ad interim ex parte order of the Civil Court
and that only a final order passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of
Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be enforced with
the assistance of the police. We, therefore, hold that the
judgment of the learned single Judge ordering police protection
in case of violation of the ex parte injunction order is not in
order and by the impugned judgment police authorities are
given the right to decide whether there is a violation of the
injunction order passed by the Civil Court. We also feel that
Courts should be reluctant to grant police protection on the
basis of ex parte injunction orders, which would only pave the
way for further litigation between parties, since the parties, on
the basis of the police protection order and with the
connivance of the police, complete constructions or commit
waste or do other acts which they would not be able to do even
after final orders are passed by the Civil Court. This Court has
come across many such instances earlier.
4 AIR 1999 Ker 383
10 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and also in view of the principle laid down in the cases cited
supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order
suffers from material irregularity and hence the same is liable to
be set aside.
11 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the
order under revision is set aside and the Court below is hereby
directed to expedite the I.A.No.1671 of 2019. No order as to
costs.
12 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Civil
Revision Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date:21.01.2021.
L.R. Copy to be marked
B/o Kvsn
