Telangana High Court
P.Jeevan Reddy vs Duba Devanna on 11 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2165 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated
14.06.2024 passed in E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.1 of 2024 in
O.S.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa,
whereunder an application filed by the petitioner/decree-holder
under Section 151 CPC seeking to provide police protection was
dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner and
Smt D.Padmavathi, learned counsel for respondents.
3. Brief factual matrix of the case relevant for adjudication of
the present Revision is that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.27
of 2009 for perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect
of suit schedule property on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa;
that the trial Court, on due consideration of entire record, decreed
the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015; that the
respondents carried the matter by way of appeal-AS.No.67 of 2018
and the Principal District Judge, Nirmal, vide judgment dated
04.01.2023, dismissed the said Appeal; that thereafter, the
petitioner filed Execution Petition in EP.No.1 of 2024 for
LNA, J
execution of the said judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, as was confirmed by the first Appellate Court in the Appeal;
that in the said E.P., the petitioner filed an application in EA.No.3
of 2024 for police protection, however, the said application was
dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated
14.06.2024; and that aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is
filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that despite
judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner restraining
the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property,
the latter are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property, therefore, the petitioner approached
the Police, Mudhole and tried to lodge a complaint, however the
Police refused to take any action on the ground that the same is
civil dispute and in such circumstances, the petitioner filed an
application for providing police protection. He further contended
that in view of deliberate attempt of respondents to interfere with
the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit
schedule property in violation of the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, as was confirmed by the first Appellate Court in
LNA, J
Appeal, the Executing Court ought to have allowed the application
and ordered for police protection.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that though
the Executing Court has wide powers and discretion to grant police
protection, it failed to exercise the discretionary power vested in it
and erroneously dismissed the application and therefore, he prayed
this Court to allow the Revision Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Venkateswarlu and another
Vs. Mada Venkata Subbaiah and another 1. It is a case where the
decree holder filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking
police protection and the same was granted by the trial Court and
the High Court interfered with and set aside the said order on the
ground that application could have been filed only under Order
XXI Rule 32 CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the
judgment of the High Court and restored the order passed by the
trial Court with an observation that merely because an application
for police protection was filed under Section 151 CPC invoking the
inherent jurisdiction, the same cannot be a reason for the High
Court to reject the application.
(2017)15 SCC 659
LNA, J
7. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that not invoking exact provision of law cannot be a
ground for rejecting an application, when the jurisdiction of the
Executing Court is undisputed.
8. In the case on hand, the petitioner has already filed an
application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC for detention of
respondents in civil prison and pending disposal of the said
application, he filed another application under Section 151 CPC for
police protection. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the
aforesaid case, i.e., in Raja Venkateswarlu's case (cited supra) are
completely different to that of the present case and as such, the
same has no application to the present case.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contended that
remedy in case of violation of judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court is available to the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32
CPC and the petitioner having availed the said remedy by filing
EP.No.1 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, again is not
entitled to police protection pending disposal of the said
application and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner.
LNA, J
10. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court by
placing reliance on judgment of Division Bench of erstwhile High
Court of Judicature for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
at Hyderabad in D.Tulja Devi and others Vs. Margam Shankar
and another 2, dismissed the application with an observation that as
the petitioner has already filed an application under Order XXI
Rule 32 CPC, the application seeking police protection is not
maintainable.
11. In D.Tulja Devi's case (cited supra), the Division Bench
held that once the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
has become final, when there is violation of decree for perpetual
injunction, the Court can order detention of J.Dr. in civil prison and
/or attachment of his property or both, however, in exercise of
powers under Section 151 CPC, the Executing Court cannot direct
the police to ensure obedience to the decree.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has already availed the
recourse under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and filed an application for
detention of respondents in civil prison, therefore, the trial Court
has rightly declined to entertain the application and dismissed the
same.
2010(3) ALT 20 (D.B)
LNA, J
13. In view of the above and in the light of the law laid down by
the Division Bench in D.Tulja Devi's case (cited supra), this Court
does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:11.03.2025
dr
