Dhanekula Venkata Lakshmi ... vs Morampudi Krishnaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 4722 Tel

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1827 OF 2022

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in I.A. No.181 of 2016 in

I.A .No.281 of 2014 in O.S. No.385 of 2014 of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at

Bhadrachalam.

2. I.A. No.181 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking

police protection. I.A. No.281 of 2014 is filed for grant of temporary

injunction during pendency of the suit O.S. No.385 of 2014 filed for

perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants. Ex-parte ad-

interim injunction order was granted to the petitioner on 10.11.2014 and

after the respondents filed their counter affidavits and on hearing both the

counsel, the said orders were made absolute on 19.04.2016. Questioning

the said order, the respondents preferred CRP No.2123 of 2016 before this

Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2016.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed interlocutory application vide I.A. No.181

of 2016 seeking police protection and the same was dismissed by the trial

court vide order dated 30.11.2016. The petitioner preferred CRP No.190 Dr.GRR,J

of 2017 before this Court and this Court on hearing both sides, granted

interim direction vide order dated 16.04.2017 in I.A. No.1 of 2017

directing the SHO, Dammapet Police Station to provide police protection

to the petitioner, pending disposal of the CRP No.190 of 2017. The said

CRP was disposed of finally on 29.11.2021 setting aside the order in I.A.

No.181 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016 and remitted the matter to the trial court

to dispose of I.A No.181 of 2016 within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court also gave certain

directions to the petitioner to file a better affidavit in I.A .No.181 of 2016.

The trial Court was directed to take on record the additional documents

filed by the petitioner and to give reasonable opportunity to the

respondents to file their counter. This court also directed the court below

to take into consideration the judgments of this Court in Gampala

Anthaiah v. Kasala Venkata Reddy (2014 (2) ALD 281);

Satyanarayana Tiwari v. SHO, PS Santoshnagar (AIR 1982 AP 394);

A. Bharathi v. State of Telangana (2017 (1) ALD 503); Sama Jana

Reddy @ Jani v. Muppa Narsimha Reddy (2017 (2) ALD 584) and

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Station House Officer, Madhapur PS,

Cyberabad, and other judgments, if any, cited by the parties and to pass

orders either granting or refusing the police aid to the petitioner. The Dr.GRR,J

petitioner was also given opportunity to file an application for granting

interim police protection as she had the benefit of interim order passed by

this Court right from 16.04.2019.

3. After the matter was remitted to the court below, the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile

Court, Bhadarachalam passed order on 22.04.2022 dismissing the

application filed by the petitioner for grant of police protection. Aggrieved

by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred this revision

contending that the said order was contrary to law. The order passed by

the trial court travelled beyond the application made by the petitioner.

Calling for the status report from the Tahsildar was against the cannons of

procedural law and against the order of this court dated 02.09.2016. The

court below committed the same error in the present application and hence,

the order was liable to be set aside. The court below ought to have seen

that earlier application for grant of injunction was allowed on merits after

hearing both the parties and the said order was confirmed in revision. The

court below erred in going into the aspect of possession of the petitioner

once again in the application filed for providing police protection for

implementing the order of injunction. The court below totally

misconstrued the application made by the petitioner in CRP No.190 of Dr.GRR,J

2017 dated 29.11.2021. The court below erred in law in holding that the

respondents were in possession of the property and that the same was

established by the report of the Tahsildar. The reasoning of the court below

in dismissing the application for providing police protection was not legal

and correct and prayed to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate and Special Government Agent, Bhadrachalam passed in I.A.

No.181 of 2016 dated 22.04.2022 by allowing the revision.

4. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,

representing Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff

and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, representing

Sri D.B. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the

court below travelled beyond the application made by the petitioner and

erred in holding that the petitioner was not in possession of the property.

The said finding was beyond the scope of the application filed for police

protection, the trial court had not appreciated the petition in proper

perspective and prayed to set aside the order of the Court below.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other

hand, contended that the petitioner on the pretext of police protection was Dr.GRR,J

trying to encroach the land of the respondents. This Court vide order in

CRP No.190 of 2017 while setting aside order in I.A. No.181 of 2016

directed the court below to conduct fresh enquiry and after fresh enquiry,

the Special Assistant Agent to Government dismissed the I.A. The suit is

pertaining to the year 2014. The parties are fighting in the interlocutory

applications filed for temporary injunction and for police protection. A

Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and Ors. v.

Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and Ors.1, gave directions to all the civil

courts to exercise abundant caution in dealing with the interlocutory

applications filed seeking police protection and hence no interference was

required in dismissing the petition filed for police protection and prayed to

dismiss this revision.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,

submitted that this court in Gampala Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla

Venkat Reddy2 held the above judgment as per incurriam, as the Division

Bench judgment was given without considering the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi [(2007) 12

SCC 201] and P.R. Muralidharan and others v. Swamy Dharmananda

2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB)

2014 (2) ALD 281 Dr.GRR,J

Theertha Padar and others [(2006) 4 SCC 501] and placed reliance on

the said judgment.

8. As seen from the above facts, I.A. No.281 of 2014 filed for

temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was allowed by the

trial court on 19.04.2016 by an elaborate order on hearing both the learned

counsel appearing for the parties on record and the ex parte ad interim

injunction order granted on 10.11.2014 was made absolute. The same was

upheld by this Court in CRP No.2123 of 2016 vide order dated 02.09.2016.

In the said order, this Court also deprecated the practice of calling for the

status report from the Tahsildar to know the possession and enjoyment of

the suit land. By relying on a judgment of this Court in Naloth Veeru @

Heerala and others vs. Guguloth Mangi3, wherein it was held that:

"I am of the opinion that the lower Court has committed a fundamental error in calling for the report from the Tahsildar and placing reliance on the same. The lower Court is discharging the functions of a Civil Court in the Agency Areas. Placing reliance on a report without summoning its author and examining him is something alien to the procedure before a Civil Court. If the lower Court felt the necessity of eliciting the opinion of the Tahsildar regarding physical possession of the suit property, the appropriate course for it would have been to summon the Tahsildar and examine him as a Court witness. Such a procedure would have ensured that opportunity is given to both the parties to cross-examine such witness. By calling for a report from the Tahsildar and placing reliance thereon, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine Tahsilder

2012 (2) ALD 455 Dr.GRR,J

the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error."

This Court observed that calling for the status report by the

trial court in the manner it did was against the cannons of procedural laws.

9. The matter was remitted to the trial court by this Court in CRP

No.190 of 2017 for a limited purpose of disposing of the application filed

by the petitioner-plaintiff for grant of police protection for implementing

the injunction order. The terms on which the said matter was remitted was

also detailed by this Court specifically in its order dated 29.11.2021. It

was also observed in the above order that:

"....the respondents, having suffered injunction order, are still asserting that they are in possession of the property and the same is not permissible."

10. But, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate observed that the

respondents are in physical possession of the property and that the same

was established through the reports of the Tahsildar, Dammapet Mandal,

third party affidavits of the boundary ryots and the resolution of the Gram

Panchayat of Mandapally Village. He had gone into the area which was

beyond the scope of the petition filed for seeking protection order and gave

a finding contrary to the findings of this Court in CRP No.2123 of 2016

dated 02.09.2016, which was not permissible. This Court deprecated the Dr.GRR,J

practice of calling for reports from the Tahsildar in CRP No.2123 of 2016.

But, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate again committed the same mistake by

calling for the report of the Tahsildar, Dammapet Mandal and observed

that the petitioner was not in physical possession of the suit schedule land

at the time of filing of the suit. As such, it is considered fit to set aside the

order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in I.A. No.181 of 2016 in I.A.

No.281 of 2014 in O.S .No.385 of 2014 dated 02.04.2022 as the said order

is against the orders of this Court in CRP No.2123 of 2016, dated

02.09.2016 and CRP No.190 of 2017 dated 29.11.2021.

11. With regard to the aspect of grant of police protection, the

sworn affidavit filed by the petitioner on 09.12.2021 would disclose that

the respondents having suffered the injunction order, were creating hurdles

in cultivation of her land and were beating them mercilessly by entering

into their land, when they were attempting to carry out certain works

relating to the cultivation in the land. The petitioner stated that they had

lodged several complaints before the police on 20.08.2019, 21.09.2019,

22.09.2019 vide FIRs bearing No.126/2019, 136/2019 and 138/2019. She

stated that on 22.09.2019, the respondents forcibly entered into their land

and removed the fencing poles, which were erected by her and caused

damage to her property for nearly about Rs.80,000/- and that she enclosed Dr.GRR,J

the photographs to show the high handed action of the respondents. She

further stated that the respondents continued their high handed action of

coming and threatening them for carrying out works in their field on

numerous occasions. On the basis of the complaints given by them, the

police registered FIRs bearing No.11/2020, dated 13.01.2020, 43/2020,

dated 09.03.2020 and 28/2021 dated 07.02.2021. Despite registration of

the multiple FIRs against the respondents, the respondents continued with

their high handed action and entering into their property and obstructing

the works carried out by them. She also enclosed the copy of FIR No.214

of 2021 dated 07.12.2021 and stated that the respondent caused damage to

her property to a value of Rs.2,50,000/-. She further stated that on

02.08.2021 when she and her husband were getting the land ploughed with

the help of a tractor at around 12 '0 clock in the afternoon, the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 along with their family members entered into the land armed

with iron rods and sticks and started attacking her and her husband with an

intention to kill them. In the said process, her husband was severely

injured. He became unconscious. Thereupon the respondents ran away

from the site. Her husband was admitted in a hospital and he also had to

undergo a surgery on 05.08.2021. She also enclosed the discharge

summary issued by the hospital, to the affidavit and submitted that he was Dr.GRR,J

still under treatment and required constant medical attention. She lodged a

complaint to the police on 02.08.2021 and basing on her complaint, the

police registered a case vide FIR No.121 of 2021 dated 02.08.2021 for the

offences under Sections 143, 148, 341, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC. She

submitted that the respondents were willfully violating the orders of the

court below without any regard to the orders passed by this Court and in

utter dis-regard to the rule of law.

12. In CRP No.190 of 2017, this court also directed the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate to take into consideration the judgments of this

Court referred to in para-9 of the order in CRP No.190 of 2017 and the

additional documents filed by the petitioner. But, the order under revision

would not disclose referring to the said judgments or the copies of several

FIRs filed by the petitioner, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Though the

Sub-Divisional Magistrate stated that he had perused the better affidavit,

counter and documents of both the parties, observed that the documents

would show that the petitioner with the support of the police entered into

the schedule land and then criminal cases were registered, after disposal of

CRP No.190 of 2017, no FIRs were initiated by either party and if police

aid is granted, law and order problem would arise.

Dr.GRR,J

13. The Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani

and Ors. v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and Ors. (1 supra) observed that:

"24. Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction arc filed only to bring the defendants around the plaintiffs with a view to accept some via- media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the Courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection, instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the Courts should be very cautious and vigilant not to introduce police intervention in civil adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the civil Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by the party obtaining an order of injunction seeking police protection. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, we hold and lay down as under.

(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court.

(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.

Dr.GRR,J

(iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.

(iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v, Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court."

14. Subsequently, a single Judge of this Court in Gampala

Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy (2 supra) held that:

"15. Thus, in the above decision, the Division Bench of this Court held that when an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection. But if he alleges that the said order has been violated, an application for police protection would not lie.

16. However, the Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi ((2007) 12 SCC 201), held that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order.

Dr.GRR,J

17. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in P.R. Muralidharan and others v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others ((2006) 4 SCC 501) . There the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could grant the relief of police protection. It held that in a given case, a person may be entitled to police protection having regard to the threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil court, and if court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to perform their duties. It held that there would be no such entitlement for protection of the writ petitioner's rights in question (to property or to an office and discharging of certain functions) when the writ petitioner's rights to do so are open to question as manifested by the pleadings themselves. It held that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding and that the jurisdiction of a civil court being wide and plenary, the High Court cannot grant such a relief in a writ proceeding.

18. So in this decision also, the Apex Court held that police protection may be granted in writ jurisdiction when a Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court granting an injunction in favor of the applicant and the same was being deliberately flouted.

19. It appears that the Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani (1 supra) did not notice the above two decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that even in cases where there is a violation of an injunction order in a suit (as opposed to a situation where only a threat of violation exists) , orders of police protection may be granted. No doubt it is necessary that the rights of the parties should be determined either finally in the suit or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner. Therefore, the view of the Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani (1 supra), in so far as it held that an application for police protection is not maintainable if there is a violation of an injunction order passed in a suit, has to be held to be per incuriam.

20. So a party, who obtained temporary injunction orders, and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 Dr.GRR,J

CPC or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for Contempt of Court, but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151 CPC from the Civil Court. With great respect to the Division Bench, I do not agree with it's view that if a party were to be allowed to seek police protection under Section 151 CPC to implement an interim injunction order granted in his favour, it would render Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 otiose."

15. The Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani

and Ors. v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and Ors. (1 supra) also accepted

that the relief of police protection may be granted in a situation where an

application was filed by the person obtaining ad-interim injunction alleging

that there was a threat of breach, dis-obedience or violation of order of

injunction, subject to proof.

16. The petitioner had filed ample proof enclosing the copies of

FIRs registered against the respondents for interfering with their

possession and obstructing carrying out cultivation of land by the

petitioner even though the temporary injunction orders were there in her

favour, not only granted by the trial court, but also by this Court. A party

could not be allowed to contravene the injunction order granted by the civil

court in whose favour it was granted. The observation of the court below

that if police aid was granted, law and order problem would arise, is Dr.GRR,J

nothing but allowing the parties to contravene the orders of the courts and

allowing the parties to take the law and order situation into their hands.

The party in whose favour there is an order should get all help to maintain

the law and order and the other party cannot be allowed to contravene the

injunction order and create a law and order problem. Hence, it is

considered fit to direct the Station House Officer, Dammapet Police

Station, Dammapet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District to grant

police protection to the petitioner, pending disposal of the suit by setting

aside the impugned order.

17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside

the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in I.A. No.181 of 2016 in I.A .No.281

of 2014 in O.S. No.385 of 2014 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and

Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.

The Station House Officer, Dammapet Police Station, Dammapet Mandal,

Bhadradri Kothagudem District, is directed to provide police protection to

the petitioner, pending disposal of the suit O.S. No.385 of 2014.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J September 19, 2022 KTL