Telangana High Court
Smt. Chintala Vimala, Died vs Bommena Rajubai on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.766 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 05.12.2023 passed in E.A.No.01 of 2022 in
E.P.No.51 of 2022 by the learned Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
(Juvenile Court), Bhupalpally.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed
O.S.No.50 of 2009 for grant of perpetual injunction and to
restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession
of agricultural land in Sy.No.62 admeasuring Ac.6.22 guntas
and Sy.No.63/2 admeasuring Ac.5.18 guntas of Kondampet
Village, Malhar Rao Mandal. The court below decreed the suit
in favor of the petitioners on 03.01.2018. Thereafter,
petitioners filed E.P.No.51 of 2022 in O.S.No.50 of 2009 under
Order XXI, Rule 32(1), 37 read with 43 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CP.C'). During pendency of the
said E.P., petitioners filed E.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking Police
protection to enforce the decree of the trial Court. Taking
SKS,J
advantage of the old age and innocence, when the
respondents tried to interfere with the physical possession of
the property, petitioners filed complaint before the Station
House Officer, Koyyur. As the said complaint was not acted
upon, petitioners filed E.P. Meanwhile, during pendency,
petitioners are under apprehension that respondents may cut
and carry away the crop which is ready for harvesting. If
police protection is not granted, they will be put to great
hardship which leads to multiplicity of proceedings.
3. The respondents therein have not filed any counter.
The trial Court after perusing the record observed that the
petitioners relied on their own affidavit only and requested for
police protection for the interference caused by respondents
over the suit schedule property, without any evidence. As
such, dismissed the said E.A. Aggrieved by the said order,
this revision petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Khammam Srinivas, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Puli Ashok
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
SKS,J
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
order dated 05.12.2023 in E.A.No.1 of 2022, contravenes the
law and probabilities of the case, potentially causing a grave
miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that despite
adjudication of the suit, the respondents/judgment debtors
are making illegal constructions, violating the order of the
Court and that the Court below failed to understand the facts,
notably that respondent Nos.2 to 5/judgment debtors 2 to 5
are interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners of
their land in Sy.No.63/2, Kondampet village, in contravention
of the perpetual injunction order obtained by the petitioners in
O.S No.50 of 2009 on 03.01.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the Court below erred in dismissing E.A.No.1 of 2022 due
to insufficient evidence, despite police complaints and
registration of crimes i.e., Crime Nos.42, 118, 119 and 129 of
2022, demonstrating the continuous disobedience and
harassment of the respondents. He further submitted that
failure to implement the order would result in the petitioners
losing their rights due to the illegal constructions of the
respondents and that the Court below overlooked crucial facts
SKS,J
and evidence presented by the petitioners. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to set aside the order of the Court below by
allowing this civil revision petition.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents filed counter affidavit denying the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
stating that the claim of petitioners that they would lose their
rights of their land in Survey No.63/2, if the order in E.A.No.1
of 2022 is not implemented, is false, as respondents are not
constructing in their land. The decree specified Sy.Nos.62 and
63/2 admeasuring Ac.6.22 guntas and Ac.5.18 guntas
respectively are having common boundaries, totaling to
Ac.12.00 guntas and the petitioners failed to mention how
much land they are having in Ac.12.00 guntas but simply
mentioned survey numbers. A survey was conducted on
01.11.2002, by the Deputy Surveyor, fixing the boundaries,
and the documents were also filed to that effect.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that petitioners failed to adduce evidence before Court below
and did not disclose death of petitioner No.1 prior to
December 2022. The Court below noted the failure of
SKS,J
petitioners in adducing evidence, observing that they did not
approach the Court with clean hands. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the order and the Court below has rightly passed
the order. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision
petition.
9. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, the suit is decreed in favour of revision petitioners
herein and after obtaining decree, petitioners filed Execution
Petition which is pending before the trial Court. During
pendency of the said E.P, as the respondents are interfering
with the possession of the petitioners, they filed the said E.A.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is
that respondents are in possession of property and there are
documents in their favour. Whether, respondents are having
documents or whether they are in possession of the property
or not has to be decided by the trial Court. The criminal case
filed by the petitioners against the respondents shows that
respondents are interfering with the property of petitioners
even after the injunction order, as such, to enjoy the fruits of
decree, it is the duty of the Court to see that the decree is
SKS,J
implemented. The trial Court referred to the judgment in
Polavarapu Nagamani and others Vs Parchuri Koteshwara
Rao and others 1 wherein it is observed that police have no
role in civil adjudication and the Courts should be very
cautious and vigilant not to introduce police intervention in
civil adjudication at the instance of plaintiff. When the order
of the Court is violated, the aggrieved person has to
necessarily file execution petition or an application seeking
attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the
court order, that when an application is filed by the person
obtaining ad-interim injunction alleging that there is threat of
breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction,
subject to proof, the Court has power to order police
protection. In the present case, the petition is dismissed
stating that except relying on their own affidavit, no evidence
was lead to prove that the respondents have interfered with
the possession of petitioners, whereas the trial Court failed to
consider that the petitioner approached the police for
redressal and they have not given aid. The suit for permanent
injunction is decreed observing interference of respondent and
when E.P., is filed, the Court has to see that decree holder to
1 (2010) 2 ALD 41
SKS,J
enjoy the fruits of decree. Further, Order XXI Rule 32 (5) also
says that any of the process can be adopted. Considering the
circumstances narrated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner,
this Civil Revision petition is allowed setting aside the
impugned order of the trial Court. The trial Court is directed
to give directions to the concerned SHO to give police aid in
case of interference. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions,
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :20.02.2025
Rds
