Telangana High Court
Mundra Venkata Sudha Rani vs Vakudoth Vasya on 28 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.140 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri. Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024 in I.A. No. 159 of 2024 in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, 'the trial Court') wherein, the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant police protection by the Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, for implementation of orders in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024, has been dismissed.
3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No. 376 of 2024.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the 2 RY,J crp_140_2025 defendants from causing interference and obstruction over the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Survey No.50/28 admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts situated at Madanpally village and grampanchayath, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing document No.2848 of 2011 dated 16.11.2011 from the original owners namely Nenawath Gobria and his family members. Nenawath Gobria and others offered to sell and the suit schedule property and the same was purchased for valid sale consideration. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction on 24.07.2024 and after grant of ad-interim injunction, on 01.08.2024, there was an attempt by the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, I.A. No.159 of 2024 was filed seeking grant of police protection.
5. To press for grant of police aid, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harshad Bishnoi and another 1, wherein it is held that when there is violation of an order of injunction, the 1 2007 (2) Supreme 772 3 RY,J crp_140_2025 Court can exercise its inherent powers and direct the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties. The property was transferred in violation of interim order not to alienate and the possession was delivered to third person. In such instance, since there was violation of the order granted, the grant of police aid was deemed necessary.
6. Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Gampala Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy 2, wherein it is held that when there is an injunction order, police protection may be granted. In this case ad-interim injunction was granted and the same was made absolute as the respondent choose to remain ex parte. The facts of the cases in Meera Chauhan (Supra 1) and Gampala Anthaiah and others (Supra 2) where interim order was granted, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as only ad-interim injunction was granted and it was not made absolute.
7. Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in E.Venkatarama Naidu and another v. E.Ramachandra Naidu 2 2013 SCC OnLine AP 380 4 RY,J crp_140_2025 and another 3, wherein it is held that a party who obtained temporary injunction orders and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC or application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(5) of the CPC but he can also file an application seeking police aid under Section 151 of the CPC. There is no issue about any aggrieved party seeking police aid under Section 151 of the CPC.
8. Further, reference is made to judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Karim Nawaz Alladin v. the State of Telangana and others 4, wherein, it is held that necessary directions were given to the trial Court to pass orders in the interim application seeking police protection. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravathi in case of Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5, held that when there is willful disobedience, a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2(5) of the CPC and Section 151 of the CPC are maintainable and that police aid can be granted to implement the order of temporary injunction.
3 2016 1 CurCC 1 4 2021 Latest Caselaw 1445 (Tel) 5 2021 0 Supreme (AP) 332 5 RY,J crp_140_2025
9. In case of Morusu Sreeramulu Reddy v. Kareppagari Eswaraiah 6, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravathi, held that when an order of temporary injunction is violated and when the plaintiff complains the same against the defendant for committing breach, the Court is under obligation to accord protection.
10. The said citations are not applicable to the present case as in all the said cases, the police aid is granted after the I.As. seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC were adjudicated on merits. In the instant case, the police aid was sought on the basis of ad-interim injunction order which is not an order passed on the merits. Therefore, the police aid is denied.
11. Learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Seelam Chandrayudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 7, wherein it is referred to case of Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 8 holding that question of police aid to implement ad-interim injunction does not arise. Same principle is laid down by the Telangana High Court in M/s. Senthan Properties v. M/s. S.V.S. Infra Services Private 6 2022 Latest Caselaw 9331 (AP) 7 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2008 8 2022 Latest Caselaw 9457 6 RY,J crp_140_2025 Limited 9 stating that the Court cannot straight away order police aid without disposing of interim injunction petition because granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to opposite party.
12. From the aforementioned judgments relied upon by both the parties, it is seen that when there is violation of interim order, the plaintiff can always approach the Court seeking restrain under Order XXXIX Rule 2(5) of the CPC and under Section 151 of the CPC to grant police aid. However, such police aid can be granted only when there is a disposal of the petition filed for temporary injunction on merits but not on the basis of ex parte ad-interim injunction orders. Rarely, police aid is granted on the basis of ex parte ad-interim injunction in extraordinary cases when there is an imminent risk of damage to the property. Such extraordinary circumstances are not cited in the petition under revision and therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 159 of 2024 in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 AIR 2021 TELANGANA 107 7 RY,J crp_140_2025
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 159 of 2024 in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 28.10.2025 gms