Telangana High Court
Vishwantha Sharadabai vs Ganta Bhaskar on 7 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1513 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order, dated 16.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.351 of 2019 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Andole, Jogipet, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, 'CPC') seeking to grant police protection to implement the order and decree, dated 25.09.2019, in C.M.A.No.02 of 2019 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property which is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.09-34 guntas in survey No.189/1/AA(1) and land to an extent of Ac.03-05 guntas in Survey No.189/5/3 (5), situated at Annaram Village of 2 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 Papannapet Mandal, Medak District along with I.A.No.52 of 2018 seeking interim injunction till disposal of the suit, was dismissed.
2.a Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal in C.M.A No.02 of 2019, which was allowed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25.09.2009. As no appeal or revision was preferred against the said order, it attained finality. It is stated that on 25.11.2019 and 30.11.2019 when the petitioner along with her husband went to the agricultural land for harvesting the crop, meanwhile, respondent- defendant No.2 came to the suit schedule land and obstructed them from doing the same. Therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff herein has filed an application before the trial Court seeking police protection. It is further stated that despite there being an injunction order, dated 25.09.2009 which is a contested order granted by learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, respondent-police are not taking any steps to grant police protection to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision ` 3 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 Petition seeking a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medak Rural, to grant police protection to the petitioner.
3.a Respondent-Defendant No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including title and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that one Kishan Rao, who is original pattadar was declared as a surplus holder and that under the Land Ceiling Act 1973, he surrendered some of the lands to the Government. Subsequently, after Government assigned Ac.02-00 guntas of suit land to respondent No.1 in the year 1983 in Survey No.189/12, respondent No.1 died on 18.05.2018 leaving behind his mother and two sisters as legal heirs, who succeeded to the said land and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.b It is further stated that the petitioner's mother filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2001 including their land and the said suit was dismissed. Further, it is contended that respondent No.2 has not received any notice in aforesaid C.M.A and it is an ex parte order and that respondent No.2 is intending to file Civil Revision Petition against the said order. ` 4 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 Immediately, after disposal of the C.M.A, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking police protection under the guise of temporary injunction order and trying to encroach upon his property. It is further contended that mere affidavit or self- serving statement without there being any high standard of proof and evidence and without resorting to the procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rules 22 or 39 Rule 2A CPC are exhausted, the petitioner cannot routinely seek police protection.
3.c It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that there was any threat, breach, disobedience or violation of orders of injunction. The Hon'ble Apex Court and the Courts in India repeatedly held that police have no role in civil adjudication and the Courts should be very cautious and vigilant while granting police protection and cannot introduce the police at the instance of a cleaver and resourceful petitioner. It is further contended that if police protection is granted to the petitioner, respondent No.2 will dispossess him leading to multiplicity of litigation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. ` 5 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
4. Having perused the material on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge placing reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani v. Paruchuri Koteswar Rao 1 came to the conclusion that the power of Court to give police protection to prevent disobedience of injunction order is different from the power of Court to deal with actual obedience. In such case, the remedy to the aggrieved party is to file an Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. It was further held that when an allegation is made by the party for obtaining an order of injunction stating that said order has been violated and application for seeking police protection would lie. However, in the present case, as it is pleaded that respondent No.2 has violated the injunction order, as such the petitioner has a remedy to approach the police for protection which could not be avail by the petitioner in the light of the decision referred to supra but the relief of the petitioner is elsewhere and dismissed the petition. 1 2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB) ` 6 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the following among other grounds contending that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that as long as the injunction order granted by the competent Court in favour of the petitioner is subsisting, the Courts have to see that the same has to be implemented by granting police protection. It was further held that the decision of the Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani's of this Court (supra) is no longer a good law and the same cannot be a basis for rejection of police protection. It is further stated that the learned Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and committed serious illegality in rejecting the petitioner application for the police protection and the rule of law requires to implement judicial orders of the Court by extending police protection and prayed this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to direct the learned Junior Civil Judge Andole, Jogipet for granting police protection to the petitioner to implement the order of injunction made in C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak. ` 7 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
6. Heard Sri L.Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondent No.2.
7. Having perused the entire material placed on record, the points that arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petitions are:
(1) Whether there is any error committed by the learned Judge in dismissing the application in not granting police protection to the petitioner.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of police protection, as prayed for?
8. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the petitioner- plaintiff against the respondents-defendants for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2, their men, agents, servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands. Initially, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Andole, dismissed the application, which was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for grant of temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property vide I.A.No.52 of 2018 on 21.01.2019 by ` 8 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 going into the entire pleadings of both the parties and also documents which are relied upon and dismissed the petition.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, wherein the learned Judge having considering the entire material placed on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff had established her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property having been satisfied with the material produced by the petitioner, learned Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. It is contended by respondent No.2 in the counter filed before the learned Junior Civil Judge that the against order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge respondent No.2 is preferring the revision. However, as of now nothing has been placed before this Court to show that a revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.
11. Coming to the aspect of granting police protection and to give a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medak District to implement the order passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 ` 9 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 and whether the same can be granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Andole, or not has to be looked into. For the sake of appreciation of the facts of the case and the law laid down as to granting of police protection and police aid, I would like to discuss the relevant decisions on the aspect of granting police aid.
PRECEDENTIAL HISTORY
12. In Satyanarayan Tiwari v. SHO 2, Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"temporary injunction granted by trial Court was confirmed by the High Court. Yet the party who suffered the injunction was alleged to have violated the said order and police aid was sought by filing of a writ petition. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, but however reversed by the Division Bench, holding that there was no such bar for granting police aid in writ jurisdiction. But the Division Bench considering the facts, allowed the writ appeal and granted police aid to the plaintiff therein. The Division Bench categorically held that High Court is having power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to grant police aid."
13. In Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham v P. Narasimham 3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
2
AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB) 3 AIR 1971 AP 53 ` 10 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 "the trial Court granted temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and the plaintiffs filed an application seeking police aid alleging violation of the said order and for implementation of the said temporary order. The Division Bench in Satyanarayan Tiwari (supra), on examination of the scope of Order 39 Rule 2(3) of CPC, held that the civil Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C, can grant police aid in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants who suffered injunction. However, now Order 39 Rule 2(3) of CPC is omitted by Act 104 of 1976, Section 86(w.e.f.1-2-1977). In Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi 4, Division Bench of Apex Court reiterated the said order."
14. In P.R.Muralidharan v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar 5, the Apex Court held as follows:
"The suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction was dismissed and he filed a writ petition for police protection. The Division Bench of High Court went into the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to hold the possession for the purpose of issuing a proper direction with regard to police aid. The Apex Court held that when rights of the parties are not decided by the trial Court, blanket protection cannot be granted. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider whether a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could grant the relief of police protection. It further held that in a given case, a person may be entitled to police protection having regard to the threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil Court, and if Court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to perform their duties. It held that there would be no such entitlement for protection of the writ petitioner's rights in question (to property or to an office and discharging of certain 4 (2007) 12 SCC 201 5 (2006) 4 SCC 501 ` 11 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 functions) when the writ petitioner's rights to do so are open to question as manifested by the pleadings themselves."
15. Further, the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a Writ proceeding and that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court being wide and plenary, the High Court cannot grant such a relief in a writ proceedings and it was held as follows:
17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil right. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil Court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226of ` 12 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations.
19. A writ for 'police protection' so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil Court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too, in furtherance of the decree or order.
16. In Polavarapuru Nagamani's case, the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The trial Court granted interim injunction, defendants filed counter to dismiss the said injunction petition. The trial Court modified the order passed clarifying that the plaintiffs shall not prevent defendants from carrying out agricultural operations. Later defendants filed an IA for police protection alleging that standing crop was destroyed by plaintiffs and police aid was granted subsequently. On examination of facts of the said case, the Division Bench held that in an application for police aid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed if the order of interim injunction is violated, Order XXI Rule 32 was to be invoked when there was a violation of an ad-interim injunction or temporary injunction order. Thus, the Division Bench took a different view to the view taken by earlier Division Bench in Satyanarayana Tiwari and the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra).
` 13 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
17. The Division Bench further held that the Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction are filed only to bring the defendants around the plaintiff's view and accept some via-media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the Courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex-parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection.
18. In J. Jagannath Reddy v. Laxmi Devi 6, the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"...Temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff was vacated and appeal preferred by the plaintiff was pending. During pendency of the said appeal, defendants sought for police aid under Section 151 of C.P.C. Thus, the Division 6 1998 (1) ALD 453 ` 14 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 Bench held that grant of police aid under Section 151 of CPC to the defendant to protect his possession would be arbitrary and it was to be dealt with under Order XXI Rule XXXII of CPC or under Contempt of Courts Act. Further, the entry of the police into the affairs of the parties after the approach to the civil Court was alien to the civil law. If there was a finding as to the possession of the property and a complaint was made to the effect that some other persons were trying to trespass into the property or committing any offence in that behalf possibly the police would take action in accordance with law."
19. In D.Tulja Devi v. Margam Shankar 7 the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"...In a suit for perpetual injunction was decreed. The plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition for execution of the said judgment and decree. In E.P., they filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking police aid. The Division Bench held that EP filed under Order XXI Rule XXXII CPC seeking perpetual injunction cannot be disposed granting police aid."
20. In Sangu Brahmam v. SHO 8 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The plaintiffs obtained decree for perpetual injunction. The defendants were unsuccessful in appeals as well as second appeals. Though the possession was found to be with the 7 (2010) 2 ALD 732 8 (2005) 3 ALD 772 ` 15 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 petitioners, opposite parties started interfering with the possession. Therefore, they approached the Station House Officer of the local police station to protect their possession but in vain. Therefore, they filed writ petition seeking a direction to the police for extending necessary help to the petitioners therein. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the police to extend necessary help to protect possession of the plaintiff over the subject property therein. The High Court held that in the said case, the plaintiffs got their rights adjudicated by a civil Court, the controversy is only to the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the same. Therefore, in the said circumstances, this Court held that the High Court can grant police aid and a direction to the police to provide aid invoking its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
21. In Bijiga Paparao v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao 9, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The trial Court granted temporary injunction, it was a contest order. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid for protection of the said order. The trial Court granted police aid. On examination of the said facts, the High Court confirmed the said order of the trial Court in granting police aid."
22. In Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy 10 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"...an ad interim injunction granted by trial Court was made absolute as it was not challenged by defendants and was subsisting. During subsistence of the said interim 9 (2015) 2 ALD 171 10 (2014) 2 ALD 281 ` 16 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 injunction, plaintiff filed an application before the trial court seeking police aid alleging interference by the defendants into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and granted police aid. The Division Bench held that an order of temporary injunction has to be obeyed by the parties to it and when the plaintiff complains that the defendant is committing breach of the said order and seeks police protection, the Court is under an obligation to accord such protection. Unless this is done, the rule of law will not prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively implemented. Granting of such orders would uphold the dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary."
23. In Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao v. Bommaji Danam 11, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The trial Court granted ad interim injunction, police aid was sought alleging violation of the said injunction and the trial Court granted police aid. On challenge, the High Court held that a party who obtained temporary injunction orders, and complained of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule XXXII CPC or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator under Contempt of Courts Act, but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151 CPC from the Civil Court."
24. In P. Shankar Rao v. Smt. B.Susheela 12, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: 11
(2014) 2 ALT 319 ` 17 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 "...confirming the order granting police aid by the trial Court, held that mere fact that the action could be taken against either party for flouting the injunction under Order 39 Rule 2-A or under the Contempt of Courts Act, does not come in the way of the Court taking all necessary steps for ensuring obedience of the injunction order. The Court need not wait till the injunction is breached. In a fit case, the Court can undoubtedly direct police aid as a preventive measure. This Power though not expressly conferred, is a power incidental or ancillary to the exercise of the power to grant injunction pending the suit."
25. In A. Bharathi v. State of Telangana 13, a combined High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, held that the possession of the plaintiff was confirmed by trial Court, High Court and the Apex Court. Plaintiff submitted representations to police with a request to provide police aid for implementation of the same and also alleged that the defendants are interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property in violation of the aforesaid orders. The police did not act upon the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition and learned Single Judge of this Court directed the police to provide police aid to the plaintiff for implementation of the said order. The same was confirmed by the Division Bench.
12
(2000) 2 ALT 606 13 2017 (1) ALD 503 ` 18 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
26. For the guidance of all the Civil Courts, the Apex Court laid down certain parameters which are extracted as under:-
(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order-XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order-
XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court.
(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under section 94 [e] or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.
(iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad- interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.
(iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach. Disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the ` 19 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self- serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court."
27. The learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.2536 of 2024 (Between Shanagonda Sampath and another v. Shanagonda Akhila and another), dated 09.06.2025 has laid down/prescribed certain parameters in respect of the applications filed for police aid, which are extracted hereunder:
"i)On the allegation of violation of ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiff has to approach trial Court seeking police aid by filing an application under Section 151 of CPC.
i. The trial Court shall examine the facts of the said case and decide the said application. If the defendants files counter opposing interim injunction application, the trial Court shall decide the said I.A. first and thereafter an application filed by plaintiffs seeking police aid. Trial Court cannot decide application filed seeking police aid first and thereafter petition filed seeking injunction. ii. The trial Court shall consider all the assertions made by the parties in the petition and counters seeking police aid. iii. On trial Court granting temporary injunction on contest, if no appeal is preferred against the said order, on confirming prima facie case and possession, the plaintiff has to file an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid. It is always advisable and proper to file an application before the trial Court seeking police aid instead of submitting ` 20 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 representation to the police seeking aid and filing writ petition alleging non-consideration of the said representation. The same will avoid interference of police in civil matters, without an order of civil Court. iv. If an appeal is preferred challenging the order granted by the trial Court and during pendency of the said appeal, if there is violation of the said temporary injunction, plaintiff shall file an application before the appellate Court seeking police aid.
v. Plaintiff shall file an application seeking a direction to the Station House Officer of jurisdictional Police Station to provide police aid. Plaintiff cannot seek a direction to Superintendent of Police, or Deputy Superintendent of Police etc., to provide police aid unless there are exceptional circumstances. .
vi. In case of trial Court decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction, no appeal is preferred against the said judgment and decree and it attained finality, on establishing prima facie case and possession of the plaintiff, if there is violation of the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff can file EP and also an application in the said EP seeking police aid.
vii. On decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction, defendant filing the appeal challenging the said judgment and decree, and if there is violation of the said injunction decree during the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff can file an application before the appellate Court seeking police aid or file an Execution Petition in the event there is no order of stay.
viii. In the event, the suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction is dismissed and the plaintiff prefers an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff may ` 21 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 seek an injunction from the appellate Court, and in case of its violation, may also seek police aid from the appellate Court.
ix. The party can also file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC seeking punishment of defendants on the allegation of violation of the injunction order granted. x. Trial Court cannot grant police aid suo-motu. xi. In Ch.Veeramma v. Mahaboob Subhani 14, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the term 'status quo' is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and gives rise to doubt. It implies the existing state of things at any given point of time. The phrase 'status quo' has been derived from 'status quo ante bellum'. Vide Bharat Coking coal Limited vs. State of Bihar-1987 (Suppl) 3 SCC 394; Satyabrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar Kishku 1994(2) SCC 266. It was held that status quo shall be specified by the Court before ordering the same. Such ambiguous orders of directing the parties to maintain the status quo without specifying what the status quo was at the given point of time, would lead to further complications. It is expedient therefore not to pass such ambiguous orders.
Trial Court shall consider the said principle while passing status quo order. Without specifying who is in possession of the property, it is not advisable to grant status quo order and it will avoid misuse of status quo order and multiplicity of litigation. xii. Even the defendant can file an application seeking injunction against the plaintiff, on obtaining the same, the defendant can seek police aid for alleged violation of injunction order granted by the court. 14 1991 (1) ALT 366 ` 22 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 xiii. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemanth Vimalnath Narichania and others 15, the Apex Court held that no litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of law as the interim order always merges into final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that case is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, or party withdrew the writ petition, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the Court.
It was further held that the forum of the writ Court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief.
An order of withdrawal of a suit does not amount to a decree of the Court, which can be executed. 15 2010 (9) SCC 437 ` 23 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 It is not permissible for a party to file a writ petition obtaining certain orders during the pendency of the petition and withdraw the same without getting proper adjudication of the issue involved therein and insists that the benefits of the interim orders or consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim order passed by the writ Court would continue. The benefit of the interim relief automatically gets withdrawn/neutralized on withdrawal of the said petition. In such a case, concept of restitution becomes applicable, otherwise the party can continue to get benefit of the interim order even after losing the case in the Court. The Court should also pass order expressly neutralizing the effect of all consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court. Such express directions may be necessary to check the rising trend among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure and then avoid adjudication on merits.
Thus, the said analogy is also applicable to the suit proceedings and other proceedings before the trial Court. Therefore, trial Courts shall consider the aforesaid principle laid down by Apex Court while dealing with petitions filed seeking police aid.
xiv. The above mentioned parameters are only illustrative and not exhaustive. There may be many more situations to seek police aid. The parties and the Courts shall consider the contentions, circumstances under which party sought police aid and decide the same in accordance with the settled legal principles discussed supra and also in various other judgments rendered by constitutional Courts which are holding the field."
` 24 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 And it was further held that the above mentioned parameters are only illustrative and not exhaustive. There may be many more situations to seek police aid. The parties and the Courts shall consider the contentions, circumstances under which party sought police aid and decide the same in accordance with the settled legal principles discussed supra and also in various other judgments rendered by constitutional Courts which are holding the field.
28. Adding to the same, this Court is also inclined to add the following parameters and the procedure to be followed when an application can be filed and to be dealt with:
(a) During the pendency of the suit, Interlocutory Application and subsistence of the injunction order, if there is any violation, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C. would lie for punishment and an application under Section 144 of C.P.C. for restitution, if any, would also lie and so also application for seeking police protection would lie and the Court is bound to order police protection and police is bound to provide on dispose of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC application during pendency of suit, similar procedure can be adopted
(b). When permanent perpetual injunction is granted and it is subsisting, in between if there is any threat of ` 25 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 violation or any disobedience in such case, the Court has become functus officio as no proceedings are pending, in such case the petitioner would have a remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC and pending Execution Petition an application to restrain further interference or disobedience or violation of the said injunction order, the police aid can be sought for and police protection can be granted.
(c). An Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC prescribes to punish the violators and as such invoking of Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC would arise only after disposal of the suit proceedings after granting perpetual injunction.
(d). The law is being settled that as per the Judgment cited supra even pending appeal if the injunction is violated or disobeyed, the remedy would be under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC but not under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC as the decree is still under challenge and the suit filed for injunction had not attained finality and in such case only remedy is to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC before the appellate Court and seek police aid from the appellate Court.
(e). It is also settled principle of law that police aid cannot be granted on mere asking without there being any material evidence as it has to be ordered in rarest of rare cases.
` 26 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
29. Considering the above decisions relied upon and the parameters laid down, this Court is of the opinion that, in general, while granting police protection during pendency of civil proceedings there will be two occasions. One is when the interim injunction is granted and any order of status quo is ordered as to the possession of any such order which is enforceable and there will be two instances, one is during the pendency of the suit or civil proceedings and other is after conclusion of suit proceedings i.e., after passing of the decree in favour of petitioner/plaintiff and granting of injunction.
30. The other instance is when there is violation of injunction orders or threat of interference, in my view, there are two things, one is to prevent violation and other is to protect, when there is threat of violation and violates, threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of injunction.
31. The other aspect is continuous police protection / guarding the properties may not be possible and it cannot be granted to reject the police protection. ` 27 NNRJ crp_1513_2021 The police protection is not automatically available to implement interim injunction orders. It is contingent upon finality indicates breach or disobedience with Courts showing continuous approach to prove misuse or unnecessary litigation.
32. Considering the above principles laid down, applying the same principles in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court while wrongly applying and relying on the law down in Polavarapuru Nagamani's case has rejected the application for grant of police aid to that extent of order passed is erroneous. But, considering the facts on hand as the petitioner has not placed any material evidence to substantiate her contentions except mere assertion, as such this Court is not inclined to allow the revision.
33. 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.
` 28 NNRJ crp_1513_2021
34. Though law is well settled by catena of judgments as cited supra that whenever an application is made seeking police aid for implementation of the injunction order of the Court, the Court had power to grant police aid, but caveat is it shall not be granted on mere asking without there being any proof or material or evidence is placed to show that there is threat of violation or violation or disobedience of the order as it has to be granted in rare of rarest cases depending on the facts and circumstances of individual cases and there cannot be a strait jacket formula for granting injunction.
35. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any grounds for grant of police aid for implementation of the injunction order, if any.
36. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKKONDA Date: 07.11.2025 YVL `