Telangana High Court
Chinthapally Jaipal Reddy vs Nidigonda Ramulu on 20 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2402 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Vijaya Prashanth, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a revision preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal ('trial
Court'), in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022, wherein the petition
filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking the relief of grant of police aid
with a direction to the Station House Officer, Choutuppal, to provide police
protection in implementation of order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022, dated
09.09.2022, has been dismissed.
3. The revision petitioners have filed suit for perpetual injunction
against the respondents herein along with an application seeking ad interim
injunction to restrict the interference with the suit schedule property. The
trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction by order dated 09.09.2022
in I.A.No.582 of 2022 and the same was continuing. Thereafter, the
respondents filed counter and written statement in the main suit. While so,
on 10.07.2023 the respondents along with others allegedly tried to enter
into the land of the revision petitioners and dispossess them. The said
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
attempts were resisted by the revision petitioners and the respondents
threatened to come again and occupy the property forcibly. When the
revision petitioners approached the SHO, Choutuppal, to take necessary
action, the police refused to do so, on the pretext that the dispute is civil in
nature. Therefore, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.236 of 2023 before
the trial Court seeking police protection.
4. The respondents opposed the said petition before the trial Court by
filing counter alleging that the revision petitioners have tried to take undue
advantage of the ex parte injunction granted by the trial Court. Further, it
is the case of the respondents that the suit is filed with the ulterior motive
of illegally grabbing the property belonging to the respondents. The lands
of the revision petitioners are elsewhere and they have nothing to do with
the alleged suit schedule property. The case of the respondents is that the
revision petitioners are not in actual possession, but want to take illegal
possession by filing a suit.
5. The trial Court considered the question as to whether the revision
petitioners are entitled to grant of police protection as prayed for and
dismissed the said application on the ground that when the alleged
interference took place there was only ad interim injunction i.e., on
10.07.2023. Further, temporary injunction was granted on merits by
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
disposing the I.A.No.585 of 2022 vide order dated 03.06.2024. Since there
was no injunction granted on merits in I.A.No.585 of 2022 as on the
alleged date of interference i.e., on 10.07.2023 and there is no allegation of
interference after granting of temporary injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2022
on 03.06.2024, the petition filed seeking police protection has been
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is
preferred.
6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioners pleaded that on
10.07.2023, the respondents and their associates have entered into the suit
schedule property, which is in possession of the revision petitioners and
therefore, there is need for grant of police protection and therefore, they
approached the police. While so, the trial Court has erroneously concluded
that there was no violation of injunction order and therefore, the revision
petitioners are not entitled for police protection. According to the revision
petitioners, the finding is self contradictory as the same Court has made
injunction absolute, but denied police protection in two different
interlocutory applications on the same day. The finding of the trial Court is
that there is no proof of interference in the form of any complaint given to
the police or any other means and such observation is incorrect. Since the
temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.585 of 2022 on 03.06.2024, the
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
revision petitioners claim that police protection ought to have been granted.
Hence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and police protection be
granted.
7. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 before this Court to
receive copy of complaint dated 01.07.2024 with Police Station Choutuppal
and copy of the injunction order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022 in
O.S.No.235 of 2022, which are to be considered for granting police
protection.
8. During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners
argued that the suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction to restrain
respondents from entering into suit schedule property which is in
possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners along with
interlocutory application in I.A.No.585 of 2022 seeking temporary
injunction and in the said application, ad interim injunction was granted
vide order dated 09.09.2022 by dispensing with notice to respondents. On
10.07.2023, there was interference by the respondents and therefore, the
interlocutory application under revision i.e., I.A.No.236 of 2023 was filed
seeking police protection. I.A.No.585 of 2022 and I.A.No.236 of 2023 in
O.S.No.235 of 2022 were heard and disposed of simultaneously.
I.A.No.585 of 2022 was allowed by making the ad interim injunction
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
absolute and I.A.No.236 of 2023 was dismissed refusing to grant police
protection. The trial Court while concluding that the revision petitioners
are in possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled for
grant of temporary injunction has also concluded that on alleged date i.e.,
on 10.07.2023 only ad interim injunction was in force and therefore, on the
basis of the said order police protection cannot be granted. Further, it is
held that though temporary injunction is made absolute vide orders in
I.A.No.585 of 2022 dated 03.06.2024 no instance of interference is cited
after grant of said order. Therefore, it is observed by the trial Court that
there are no grounds to grant police protection.
9. In this context, learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed
reliance on judgments of this Court in Bijiga Papa Rao v. Jonnalgadda
Srinivas Rao 1 , wherein it is held that police aid can be granted in
deserving and appropriate cases under Section 151 of CPC and sanctity of
orders and decrees of Court cannot be allowed to be invaded and flouted in
the name of lame, feeble and unreasonable excuses and explanations.
Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in Gampala Anthaiah v.
Kasarla Venkat Reddy 2, wherein it is held that when there is breach or
disobedience or violation of order of injunction granted by the Court,
2015 (2) ALD 171
2014 (2) ALD 281
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
police protection may be granted to uphold the rule of law and unless such
action is taken rule of law will not prevail and judicial orders would not be
effectively implemented. Reference is made to the judgment of Madras
High Court in N. Karpagam v. Deivanaiammal @ Deivathal3, wherein it
is held that the civil Court can give directions to render aid to the parties for
the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction
granted by the Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no flaw in
the impugned order as the I.A.No.236 of 2023 was filed before the
temporary injunction was made absolute in I.A.No.585 of 2022 vide order
dated 03.06.2024. When the alleged interference took place on 10.07.2023
there is only ad interim injunction, which was granted without considering
the merits of case of both the parties and therefore, there was no ground to
grant police aid for alleged interference on 10.07.2023. However, after
grant of temporary injunction on 03.06.2024 there is no instance of
interference and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition
filed seeking police protection.
11. Referring to I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed in the present revision, learned
counsel for the respondents referred to the police complaint given on
AIR 2003 MAD 219
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
01.07.2024 alleging interference by the respondents in the suit schedule
property. This complaint was given after passing of the impugned order
dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 and order in I.A.No.585 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in case there is any new
cause of action for grant of police protection on the basis of police
complaint given on 01.07.2024 a fresh interlocutory application has to be
filed seeking police protection, but I.A.No.236 of 2023 filed for cause of
action which allegedly arose on 10.07.2023 is not maintainable.
12. Undisputed facts are that the petitioners claimed to be in possession
of the suit schedule property and the suit for perpetual injunction is filed
alleging interference by the respondents and I.A.No.585 of 2022 was filed
seeking temporary injunction and ad interim injunction was granted on
09.09.2022 in the said I.A.. Thereafter, almost after ten months there was
an interference by the respondents on 10.07.2023 and therefore, I.A.No.236
of 2023 i.e., I.A. under revision was filed, but the same was dismissed.
While the revision petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to grant of
police protection on the basis of the judgments in Bijiga Papa Rao,
Gampala Anthaiah and N. Karpagam (all cited supra), the version of the
learned counsel for the respondents is that no police protection can be
granted on the basis of ad interim injunction, which is not passed on merits.
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
13. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the
judgment of this Court in Shanagonda Sampath v. Shanagonda Akhila 4,
wherein it is held as under:
"47. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that Civil
Courts have power to grant police aid when there is allegation of
violation of injunction granted by trial Court. But the civil Courts have
to exercise the said power in rarest of rare cases and with great
circumspection and caution."
14. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rai Naramma v. State of
Andhra Pradesh5, held as under:
"7. It is now 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 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."
15. As per the aforesaid judgments, police protection cannot be granted
on the basis of ad interim injunction unless extraordinary circumstances
prevail. In normal course police aid can be granted only after the order of
C.R.P.No.2536 of 2024, dated 09.06.2025
(2021) 1 ALT 426
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
temporary injunction is passed on merits in an interlocutory application
filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
16. Irrespective of whether police aid can be granted or not on the basis
of the ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 in
I.A.No.585 of 2022, the fact remains that no iota of evidence has been
produced to demonstrate that there was interference by the respondents
while adjudicating the impugned application under revision. Only after the
impugned order was passed dismissing I.A.No.236 of 2023 on 03.06.2024
and just before filing the present revision petition a police complaint dated
01.07.2024 is lodged with the police by the revision petitioners to show
that there is interference by the respondents. For instance, even if it is
acknowledged that the contents of the police complaint dated 01.07.2024
are true, the same cannot be basis for passing of order of police protection
in I.A.No.236 of 2023 as there is no concrete proof to believe interference
by the respondents prior to 01.07.2024. The complaint given to police on
01.07.2024 may give rise to a fresh cause of action seeking police
protection in view of injunction order granted in I.A.No.585 of 2022 dated
03.06.2024. As such, there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned
order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022. The
Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
RY,J
CRP_2402_2024
17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the
order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022 on
the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 20.08.2025
GVR
