Telangana High Court

Banda Venkat Reddy vs Veesam Galaiah on 13 September, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   C.R.P.NO.1094 OF 2022
ORDER:

Heard Sri Seetharam Reddy Kancharla, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri K. Jagdishwar Reddy, learned

Counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the trial Court

to dispose off I.A.No.342 of 2020 in I.A.No.183 of 2020 in

O.S.No.91 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District.

3. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.342 of 2020 before

the trial Court seeking grant of police aid for implementation

of the order of interim injunction dated 19.06.2020 in

I.A.No.183 of 2020 on the ground that the respondents

despite of the order of the interim injunction against them are

trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the

suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

                                                                CRP_1094_2022
                                  2                                     SN,J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

police aid petition can be disposed off at first without taking

up the injunction petition for disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,

argued that the police aid petition can be taken for hearing

only after the disposal of the temporary injunction petition i.e.

I.A.No.183 of 2020, now pending before the lower Court.

6. It is pertinent to bring on record that the very

same petitioner herein on an earlier occasion

approached this Court by filing C.R.P.No.1093 of 2022

seeking a direction for disposal of I.A.No.183 of 2020 in

O.S.No.91 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Ramannapet, Nalgonda District. The said C.R.P. was

allowed vide order dated 17.08.2022 directing the

Junior Civil Judge, Ramanpet, Nalgonda District to

dispose of I.A.No.183 of 2020 within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Paras 3 to 6 of the said order reads as under:

"3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.91 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District for perpetual injunction against defendants 1 to 3 to restrain them from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

                                                                       CRP_1094_2022
                                     3                                         SN,J

Along with the suit the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.183 of 2020 for grant of ad-interim injunction against the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. After receiving notice of the interlocutory application, the respondents filed counter and the petition is now pending for enquiry.

3. The first plaintiff filed the present revision petition mainly on the ground that the lower Court has not yet disposed off I.A.No.183 of 2020 filed on 19.06.2020 even though the respondents had filed counter.

4. As can be seen from the record, the lower Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 19.06.2020 to be in force till 03.07.2020. A bare perusal of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) C.P.C. reads as under:

"Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty day 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".

5. The trial Court has kept the petition pending without disposing it off since June, 2020 even after the respondents had filed the counter and since there is delay in disposal of the petition, the 1st plaintiff filed the present revision petition seeking a direction for immediate disposal of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that he has no objection for giving direction to the lower Court for early disposal of I.A.No.183 of 2020 in O.S.No.91 of 2020.

6. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed directing the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District to dispose off I.A.No.183 of 2020 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

7. In the case of Gangupanthula Ranga Rao v Bathula

Laxmaiah and others reported in 2019(1) ALD 411, the trial

Court refused to grant police aid to the petitioner/plaintiff for

implementation of interim order of injunction on the ground CRP_1094_2022 4 SN,J

that there was only interim order of injunction and no order

on merits was passed on the temporary injunction petition

and accordingly, passed orders on the police aid petition.

Aggrieved thereby, the said plaintiff came to High Court by

way of revision petition and that after referring to the earlier

judgments, the High Court examined the question whether

police aid can be granted for implementing the order of

interim injunction.

8. It is pertinent here to refer to paras 7, 8 and 9 of

the judgment dated 22.10.2018 in C.R.P.No.4337 of

2018 reported in 2019 (1) ALD 411 Gangupanthula

Ranga Rao v Bathula Laxmaiah and others1 and the

same reads as under:

"7. So from a conjunctive study of both the judgments of this Court, the conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no hurdle for a Court to implement an ad-interim injunction order when it finds that the respondent has intentionally violated the said order. At the same time, the Trial Court shall be circumspective before ordering police-aid. It shall take into consideration the other factors also. If the respondents already filed their counter in interim injunction petition and claimed title and possession over the suit

2019 (1) ALD 411 CRP_1094_2022 5 SN,J

property as on the date of suit, then it will be just and trite for the Trial Court to first conduct enquiry in interim injunction petition to decide the merits in the case of each party. If it finds that the plaintiff was having prima facie title and possession as on the date of suit and defendant meddled with the suit property in spite of ad-interim order, certainly it can make absolute the ex parte order on one hand and order police-aid on the other. In contrast, if the Trial Court finds the prima facie title and possession as on the date of suit in favour of defendant, it can dismiss the interim injunction petition as well as police-aid petition. So logically speaking, it is always desirable for the Court to conduct enquiry at first in interim injunction petition followed by the police-aid petition.

This procedure can be followed only when, by the date of hearing the police-aid petition, the respondent/defendant has come up with counter in interim injunction petition and he is ready for enquiry. On the other hand, if he has not filed counter in interim injunction petition and only gets ready in police- aid petition or takes adjournment in the said petition as well as other petitions, then the Court will be at liberty to dispose of the police-aid petition on merits.

8. In the instant case, the contention of respondents/defendants is that they have already filed their written statement as well as counter in I.A.No.78/2016 and they are always ready for enquiry. Besides, in the written statement, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers, their emphatic contention is that they are the owners and possessors of the suit land and some other lands. That being the case, the Trial Court was perfectly right in not granting police-aid at the moment.

                                                                                CRP_1094_2022
                                        6                                               SN,J




      9.   In   the    result,   this       CRP   is    partly       allowed        and

I.A.No.391/2016 is restored to file and consequently, the Trial Court is directed to conduct enquiry in I.A.No.78/2016 in O.S.No.53/2016 and pass an order on merits within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and basing on the result in the said petition, it shall pass orders in I.A.No.391/2016. No costs.

9. Applying the same principle, and also taking into

consideration the orders dated 17.08.2022 passed in

C.R.P.No.1093 of 2022, filed by the petitioner herein and

further taking into consideration the fact that the

respondents/defendants have already filed counter in

I.A.No.183 of 2020 in O.S.No.91 of 2020 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District, the present Civil

Revision Petition is disposed off directing the trial Court to

dispose off the police aid petition i.e. I.A.No.342 of 2020 in

I.A.No.183 of 2020 in O.S.No.91 of 2020, soon after the

disposal of I.A.No.183 of 2020, expeditiously, basing on the

result in I.A.No.183 of 2020,. No order as to costs.