Telangana High Court
Sultan Ramesh vs Ganji Swaroopa Rani on 23 February, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.11 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mrs. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.24. As per cause title, remaining respondents are not necessary parties to the present revision.
2. The present revision is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A. No.431 of 2022 in I.A. No.716 of 2013 in O.S. No.605 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.818 of 2013), dismissing the petition filed under Section - 151 of C.P.C. to grant police aid.
3. The petitioners herein have filed a suit vide O.S. No.605 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.818 of 2013) for perpetual injunction against the respondents - defendants restraining them, their family members etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Along with the said suit, they have also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.716 of 2013 under Order - XXXIX, Rules - 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Vide order dated 30.10.2013, learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, granted ex parte ad 2 KL,J CRP No.11 of 2024 interim injunction in favour of the petitioners - plaintiffs restraining the respondents, their men etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents herein have not filed any counter in the said I.A. No.716 of 2013. However, they have filed written statement in the main suit. Issues were framed and it is posted to 05.03.2024 for cross-examination of PW.1.
5. The petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.431 of 2022 seeking police aid under Section - 151 of C.P.C. on the ground that the respondents having knowledge about the said ad interim injunction order, removed electrical motor illegally by disobeying the said order and that the respondents are interfering with the possession continuously.
6. The said application was opposed by respondent No.24 contending that when the petitioners tried to interfere with their possession, they filed a criminal case against the petitioners and the same was registered as Crime No.45 of 2023 and that the petitioners are trying to grab their property.
3
KL,J CRP No.11 of 2024
7. Vide impugned order dated 17.102.023, the trial Court dismissed the said application on the sole ground that it was an ex parte order and it was not made absolute. However, in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, the trial Court specifically mentioned that the said I.A. No.716 of 2013 was directed to call with suit as the main suit was riped for disposal.
8. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the respondents are continuously interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property during subsistence of the said ex parte ad interim injunction order. Despite granting opportunity, they have not filed counter in I.A. No.716 of 2013. There is no other alternative to them except seeking police aid. Therefore, they have filed I.A. No.431 of 2022. Without considering the said aspect, in such circumstances, the trial Court should have decided I.A. No.716 of 2013 or made the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 30.10.2013 absolute and decide I.A. No.431 of 2022. Instead, the trial Court decided only I.A. No.431 of 2022 relying on the decisions in Senthan Properties v. S.V.S. Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. 1; Rai Naramma v. State 1 . 2021 (2) ALT 387 4 KL,J CRP No.11 of 2024 of Andhra Pradesh 2 and Adhikarath Valappil v. Korath Illath Valappil Mammi 3.
9. The afore-stated facts would reveal that the petitioners have filed the said suit in the year 2013 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the said suit, they have filed I.A. No.716 of 2013 seeking ad interim injunction. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 30.10.2013. The respondents did not file counter in I.A. No.716 of 2013. The trial Court without disposing the said interim injunction petition on merits directed to call the said I.A. along with suit. Issues were framed in the suit and it is posted for trial on 05.03.2024 i.e., cross-examination of PW.1. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.431 of 2022 seeking police aid on the ground that despite ad interim injunction order, the respondents have been continuously interfering with their possession. The respondents have filed their counter in the said I.A. No.431 of 2022, but did not file counter in I.A. No.716 of 2013. Learned trial Court instead of deciding I.A. No.716 of 2013 filed for interim injunction on merits decided I.A. No.431 of 2022 filed for police aid. The trial Court neither made the ex parte injunction order absolute, nor decided the said application on 2 . 2021 (1) ALT 426 3 . AIR 1999 Ker. 383 5 KL,J CRP No.11 of 2024 merits. Thus, the trial Court erred in deciding the petition filed by the petitioners seeking police aid without deciding the petition filed by them seeking interim injunction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. Though the respondents have filed counter in I.A. No.431 of 2022, the petitioners herein have stated that respondent Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 39 are not necessary parties. In fact, respondent No.24 filed counter on his behalf and also on behalf of other respondents in I.A. No.431 of 2022. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A. No.431 of 2022 in I.A. No.716 of 2013 in O.S. No.605 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.818 of 2013) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge at Warangal is set aside. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal is directed to decide I.A. No.716 of 2013 first and decide I.A. No.431 of 2022 thereafter. Liberty is granted to the respondents to file counter in I.A. No.716 of 2013. Learned Senior Civil Judge shall decide both I.As. i.e., I.A. No.716 of 2013 and I.A. No.431 of 2022 strictly in accordance with law within one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. Both the petitioners and the respondents shall cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the said I.As.
6
KL,J CRP No.11 of 2024
11. As discussed above, the suit is of the year 2013 and it is only for perpetual injunction. Therefore, learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal is directed to dispose of the said suit itself strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 23rd February, 2024 Mgr