Telangana High Court
Darga Ashok, vs C. Pulla Reddy, on 21 June, 2024
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1776 of 2024
ORDER :
The instant Revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner /
judgment-debtor No.2 praying the Court to set aside the order
dated 18.12.2023 in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014
passed by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the
impugned order'), and to dismiss the same.
2. Heard Mr.Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner / judgment-debtor No.2.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Court below allowed the
above E.P. by directing the concerned police to grant police
aid to respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein to the extent of protecting
them from defendants / judgment-debtors.
4. Initially the suit was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6
seeking for a perpetual injunction.
::2:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
5. On 17.06.2022, the Court below decreed the suit in
favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 by holding that they have
established their right, title, interest and possession over the
suit schedule property. It further specifically held that the
defendants / judgment-debtors, their henchmen, agents,
representatives in person or persons claiming through them
are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over
the suit schedule property.
6. By efflux of time, the impugned order has gone
unchallenged, and the same has attained finality.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that when the defendants / judgment-debtors in the above
suit tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the
respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property, the
above E.P.No.10 of 2022 was filed by the respondent
Nos.1 to 6 seeking for police aid so as to ensure strict
implementation of the impugned order. Vide order dated
18.12.2023, the impugned order came to be passed by the
Court below granting police aid to the respondent Nos.1 to 6
over the suit schedule property.
::3:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
8. Aggrieved, the present Revision has been filed by the
petitioner.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner banked upon a decision delivered by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
D. Tulja Devi and others vs. Margam Shankar and
another 1, wherein the Division Bench held that an execution
petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908 seeking perpetual injunction cannot be disposed of by
directing the police to ensure obedience to the decree.
10. However, as has been discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the above suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6
was for a perpetual injunction and which was decreed in
favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. In the said judgment
and decree it has been specifically held by the Court below
that it is the respondent Nos.1 to 6 who are in actual
possession of the suit schedule property and it is the
defendants / judgment-debtors who have been restrained
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property.
2009 S.C.C. Online A.P. 797
::4:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
11. In the said contextual backdrop, if the defendants /
judgment-debtors are trying to interfere with the possession
of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule property,
and in the teeth of the judgment and decree dated
17.06.2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014 having gone unchallenged
and also having attained finality, and when the Court below
has granted the respondent Nos.1 to 6 police aid so far as
implementation of the order is concerned, the same has to be
considered to the extent of ensuring that peaceful possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the
respondent Nos.1 to 6 should not be hindered. The order
passed the Court below in E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of
2014, which was filed under Order XXI Rule 31 of C.P.C., was
not for a direction to the police to ensure that defendants /
judgment-debtors herein be dispossessed and vacant
possession be given to the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Rather, the
direction was only to ensure compliance of the judgment and
decree passed by the Court below which is only to the extent
that the defendants / judgment-debtors are restrained from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the
respondent Nos.1 to 6, and that the police aid which has been
::5:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
ordered also would be only to the aforesaid extent and cannot
be anything beyond doubt.
12. As regards the decision referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in D. Tulja Devi (supra) is
concerned, the same has been decided in a reference case by
the Division Bench under entirely different contextual and
factual backdrop unlike in the present case where the
judgment and decree itself has gone unchallenged and has
attained finality, and the judgment and decree itself
specifically mentions that it is the respondents / plaintiffs
who are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property.
13. Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the order dated 18.12.2024 in
E.P.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.58 of 2014 passed by the Court
below is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, in the given
factual backdrop, this Court does not find any strong case
made out by the petitioner calling for interference of the
impugned order passed by the Court below. The Revision
therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
::6:: PSK,J
crp_1776_2024
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 21.06.2024
Ndr
