Telangana High Court

Dudipala Venkat Papi Reddy vs Rakonda Bheem Reddy on 20 November, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2117 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Revision is directed against the order dated

25-01-2024 in I.A. No. 508 of 2023 in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022 in

O.S. No. 359 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil

Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District.

2. Petitioners herein are plaintiffs. They filed suit for

perpetual injunction restraining respondents - defendants, their

workers/servants, agents and representatives or any person or

persons claiming through them, from interfering with their

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule

property. In I.A.No. 1043 of 2022, the trial Court by order dated

02-09-2022 granted Ad-interim injunction till filing of counters.

Further, respondents filed their counter in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022

on 29-09-2022 and trial Court by order dated 29-09-2022

granted extension of interim orders till 25-10-2022 and since

then, from time to time, interim orders are being extended and

as on date, interim injunction order is still subsisting. It is the

case of petitioners that despite the interim injunction orders

passed by the competent civil court, Respondents are wilfully

disobeying the orders of trial Court by not only interfering with

their peaceful possession over subject lands but on 28-04-2023

had damaged the seasonal crops and also boundary stones and

sign boards erected by them. Against which, Petitioners had

given criminal complaint, the same was registered as FIR No. 58

of 2023 dated 29-04-2023 and the same is pending

investigation. The cases so far registered against the

Respondents/Defendants are FIR Nos. 122, 134,143 of 2022

for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34

IPC. Respondents/Defendants, by constantly threatening

Petitioners, had not only committed breach and disobedience of

the order passed by the Trial Court in I.Α. No. 1043 of 2022 in

O.S. No. 359 of 2022, but also creating law and order situation

in the village and Petitioners are unable to oppose them as they

reside at Hyderabad and were outnumbered by their supporters

who are anti-social elements, as such, left with no option the

Petitioners were constrained to take out I.A.No. 508 of 2023

seeking police aid to implement the interim injunction orders

dated 02-09-2022 passed in I.A. No. 1043 of 2022 in O.S. No

359 of 2022 in the interest of justice.

3. Respondents in their counter filed in I.A.No. 508 of

2023, had not denied with regard to registration of FIRs against

them, however contends that police aid cannot be granted as

rights of the parties had not been determined finally.

4. The trial Court, relying on the judgments of this

Court in Bijiga Paparao v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao,

dated 07.11.2014 and P.Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela, dated

20.01.2000, held that high degree of proof is necessary to grant

police aid, however, in the present case, petitioners failed to

adduce evidence to prove their case except filing affidavit along

with petition under Section 151 C.P.C. Further, it was held that

in the present case, petitioners contended that respondents

caused interference to peaceful possession over subject land on

28.04.2023 and destructed the boundary stone and sign board

erected by them, further, respondent No.4 had given press meet

on 28.05.2023 claiming that they are in possession of suit land,

but no iota of evidence is placed before this Court by petitioners

to substantiate their claim, except making bald statement.

Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that there is no

imminent threat of dispossession of petitioners by respondents.

Thus, holding, the Application was dismissed.

5. It is stated that when Respondents/Defendants

questioned the validity of sale deeds executed in favour of

Petitioners with respect to suit scheduled property by filing O.S.

No. 83 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Vikarabad, the same was dismissed with costs, against which

defendants filed A.S. No. 261 of 2022, which was disposed by

confirming Petitioners' ownership. Further, the

Respondents/Defendants had challenged the said Order before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 13057/2023 which was also

dismissed on 15-05-2023. Thus, Petitioners right, title and

interest over the subject lands was confirmed right up to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, despite this, the

Respondents/Defendants are interfering with Petitioners

peaceful possession and enjoyment, left with no other option,

they had filed the subject suit seeking injunction.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Mallipeddi

Srinivas Reddy submits that the impugned order is contrary to

law and against the probabilities of the case. The trial Court

erred in dismissing the I.A. without proper appreciation of Law

and passed the Impugned Order based on mere assumptions

and presumptions. The trial Court failed to appreciate the

settled principle of law that admitted facts need not be proved.

According to learned counsel, any facts averred in the Petition

must be denied specifically and if no plea is not taken in that

manner, then the averments shall be taken to be admitted and

in the instance case, Respondents neither denied the slew of

F.LRs. filed against them nor denied the press meet addressed

by them, wherein they had asserted that they are in possession

of the suit scheduled property, as such, the trial Court ought

not to have held that there is no iota of evidence before the

Court in respect of breach of injunction orders. It is contended

Respondents did not seek to set aside the interim injunction

order dated 02-09-2022 nor filed any documents to demonstrate

that they are in possession over the suit scheduled property.

Reiterating that it is settled law that civil Courts have power to

issue directions to Police Officials for implementing Order of

injunction, learned counsel submits that injunction order is

subsisting till date and despite the same, Respondents are

constantly trying to dispossess Petitioners. He relied upon the

judgments of this Court in Syed Sadullah Hussaini v. Syed

Waliullah 1, Talla Srinivas Goud v. Ghanapuram Srinivas

Reddy 2, E. Venkatarama Naidu v. E. Ramacandra Naidu 3

and Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao v. Bommaji Danam 4 in this

context.

7. Despite granting sufficient opportunity,

respondents have not come up with any counter-affidavit.

8. From a perusal of the order under Revision, it is

evident that the Court below dismissed the Application for police

aid on the ground that petitioners failed to prove imminent

2017(1) ALT 553

2022(1) ALT 189 (S.B.)

2015(5) ALT 238 (S.B.)

2014(2) ALT 319 (S.B.)

threat of breach of injunction order by respondents. In the

affidavit filed in support of I.A., petitioners have categorically

stated that defendants with the aid of anti-social elements, had

tried to attack and abuse them in filthy language and threaten

them to leave the subject lands, for which, they have lodged

complaints vide FIR Nos. 122, 134, 143 of 2022, which were

taken cognizance as C.C.Nos. 62 of 2023, 63 of 2023 and 64 of

2023 and Crime No. 58 of 2023 is pending investigation. In all

the crimes, the offence alleged is under Sections 447 and 427

IPC. read with Section 34 IPC. That itself discloses that there is

an element of threat. Further, in the affidavit, it has been

stated that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in

Writ Petition No. 42691 of 2022, when the Mandal Surveyor,

Kulkachaerla on 27.04.2023 tried to conduct survey of subject

lands, defendants had not only openly threatened them but also

threatened the revenue officials and it is only after intervention

by police of Kulkachaerla, survey could be conducted. After

completion of survey on 27.04.2023, when petitioners left the

suit property, next day, respondents had completely destroyed

the boundary stones and sign board erected by them. Further,

the 4th defendant gave a press meet on 28.05.2023 claiming

that they are in possession of property which goes to show the

highhandedness and blatant disobedience of the interim order

of injunction. It is also pleaded that petitioners filed Writ

Petition No. 20754 of 2023 seeking police aid, wherein this

Court by order dated 19.10.2023, gave liberty to petitioners to

file Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC in the subject

suit seeking police protection for implementation of orders in

I.A.No. 1043 of 2022 and if such an Application is filed, the

learned Junior Civil Judge, Parigi shall dispose of the same in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

9. However, the learned trial Judge, did not take the

same into consideration. He recorded that copy of complaint,

acknowledgment of complaint and FIR were not brought on

record hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Relying on the

judgments (supra), the learned Judge held that to prove his

case, petitioners have to establish high degree of proof and there

is imminent threat of breach of injunction order. Since in the

case on hand, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to prove

high degree of proof which is necessary to grant police,

dismissed the Application.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned

trial Judge erred in holding that petitioners failed to establish

high degree of proof for, it is a matter of record that whenever

defendants tried to interfere with the subject property,

petitioners filed complaints which were registered as FIRs. and

subsequently, the same were taken cognizance of by the

competent jurisdictional criminal Court. The judgments relied

on by the learned counsel for petitioners, stated supra also, are

to the effect that police aid can be granted under Section 151

CPC, not only when there is a threat of dispossession, as

contended by petitioners / defendants but also when there is a

complaint of violation of order of temporary injunction. In

Talla Srinivas Goud's case, this Court enunciated the

following aspects for ready reference of the Courts below:

1) The duty of the Court is not only to protect the rights and interest of the parties, but also to see that its orders are property implemented.

2) Procedure which would meet the ends of justice orf which would prevent the abuse of process of the Court should always be followed, as the procedure is handmaid of justice.

3) All revenue and police authorities are under obligation to assist the Courts (civil or criminal) of all cadres for rendering substantial and complete justice to the parties.

4) Breach of orders of the Courts of justice should be viewed seriously.

5) Grant of an order is of no use if its implementation cannot be fructified.

6) Absence of specific provision of law should not bar the aggrieved of an appropriate remedy. In such cases, inherent powers of the Court should be invoked to protect the rights of the parties.

7) Granting police aid to prevent violation of an order of temporary injunction is always better and desirable, than initiating contempt proceedings or invoking other provisions of law after the order of temporary injunction of the Court is breached.