Telangana High Court
Vadde Sharadamma vs Smt. Khamarunnisa Begum on 23 August, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRP No. 732 OF 2022
ORDER :
Challenging the order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121
of 2022 in I.A.No.656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021 by the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, this revision is filed.
2. Heard Sri. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. K. Chaitanaya, learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.
3. The respondents herein/plaintiffs have filed a suit vide
O.S.No.334 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge
Mahaboobnagar against the petitioners herein/defendants for
perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from
interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have
filed a petition vide I.A.No.656 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction
and Court below vide order dated 28.10.2021 granted ex-parte ad-
interim injunction. The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was posted to
12-11-2021 after ordering notices. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was adjourned to
29.12.2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022.
4. Further, according to the petitioners/defendants, they have filed
counter in I.A No.656 of 2021. In the meanwhile, respondents/
plaintiffs have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.121 of
2022 seeking police aid in implementing the ex parte ad interim order
dated 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022
was allowed vide order dated 23-02-2022. Aggrieved with the said
order dated 23.02.2022, the petitioners/defendants herein have filed the
present Revision.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the
respondents/plaintiffs have filed the afore-stated suit vide O.S.No.334
of 2021 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. They
have also filed I.A.No.656 of 2021 for ad interim injunction vide order
dated 28.10.2021,Court below granted an ex parte ad interim
injunction and posted the said Interlocutory application to 12.11.2021
by ordering notice to petitioners herein. Thereafter, the said
Interlocutory Application was adjourned to 29.12.2021 and to
23.03.2022.
6. It is trite to note that as per Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC,
the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application
within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted;
and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such
inability. But the Court below without doing so, adjourned I.A No. 656
of 2021 to 29-12-2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022.
The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 is pending now. In the meanwhile, the
respondents/plaintiffs have filed aforesaid petition vide I.A.No.121 of
2022 seeking police aid to implement the said ex parte ad interim
injunction passed in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022
was allowed on 23.02.2022 and the Court below granted Police aid.
7. Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the Court below without hearing the injunction
petition i.e. I.A.No.656 of 2021, allowed I.A.No.121 of 2022 and
erroneously granted police aid. He has placed reliance on two
judgments. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Vanga Buchi Reddy Vs. Vanga Madhusudhan Reddy1 held that
when a person against whom the ex parte injunction is passed makes a
Order dated 12.04.2014 in CRP No. 4395 of 2003: MANU/AP/0237/2004
request to the court to hear the injunction petition on merits, Court
should normally postpone the hearing of the petition seeking police aid
to enforce the ex parte order of injunction, till the disposal, on merits of
the injunction petition. If the person against whom an order of ex parte
injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction, petition
under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC to punish him can be filed. It should
be kept in view that granting police aid to implement an ex parte
injunction, may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the
opposite party, without hearing whom an injunction as granted against
him. In Rai Naramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh held that it is not well settled law that only when
there is a decree for permanent injunction and only when there is an
order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is
made absolute after hearing both the parties, then only the Courts
usually either the civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant police aid
for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or
a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. But when the
ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted without hearing the
respondents and when the same is not made absolute granting a
Order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.No.15312 of 2020
temporary injunction order, till the disposal of the suit, on merits, the
Courts will not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation
of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. Since it is not an order on
merits after hearing both the parties, the Courts would be very slow in
granting police aid, till the possession and rights of the parties are
determined after enquiry based on evidence.
8. On the other hand, Sri K.Chaitanya, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, referring to the principle laid
down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in
Gangupanthula Ranga Rao Vs. Bathula Laxmaiah3, in CRP No.
1155 of 2021 dated 22.10.2018 and order of this Court in Rajiv Raj Vs
Bodramoni Bhaskar4, would submit that police aid can be granted
even to implement ex parte injunction. The trial court having granted
ex parte ad interim injunction on 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.656 of 2021
failed to decide within 30 days and failed to record reasons. On the
other hand, it has granted police aid.
9. However, in the present case facts are different. As discussed
supra, the Court below is obligated to decide I.A.No.656 of 2021,
(2018) SCC online Hyd 383; [2018] 6 ALT 778).
Order dated 17.12.2021 in CRP No.1155 of 2021
injunction petition within 30 days from the date of granting injunction.
The word 'shall' is used in Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC. Otherwise,
Court shall record its reasons for such inability. Both the learned
counsel for the petitioners and respondents would submit that counters
in both I.A.No.121 of 2022 and I.A.No.656 of 2021 were filed.
I.A.No.656 of 2021 is also coming for hearing. Thus, according to this
Court, the Court below committed error in deciding only police aid
petition while keeping injunction petition pending.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, according to this court,
the impugned order is not on consideration of actual facts and law.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121
of 2022 in IA No. 656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021 is liable to be set
aside.
11. Therefore, this Revision is disposed of. The order dated
23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2022 in IA No. 656 of 2021 in OS
No. 334 of 2021 by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is set
aside. The learned judge is directed to dispose of both the petitions vide
I.A No.121 of 2022 and I.A.No.656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date: 23-08-2022
Note: Issue copy forthwith.
Tssb/vvr
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRP No.732 OF 2022
Date:23-08-2022
Tssb/vvr
