Telangana High Court
Chinthapally Jaipal Reddy vs Nidigonda Ramulu on 20 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2402 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Vijaya Prashanth, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a revision preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022, wherein the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking the relief of grant of police aid with a direction to the Station House Officer, Choutuppal, to provide police protection in implementation of order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022, dated 09.09.2022, has been dismissed.
3. The revision petitioners have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein along with an application seeking ad interim injunction to restrict the interference with the suit schedule property. The trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction by order dated 09.09.2022 in I.A.No.582 of 2022 and the same was continuing. Thereafter, the respondents filed counter and written statement in the main suit. While so, on 10.07.2023 the respondents along with others allegedly tried to enter into the land of the revision petitioners and dispossess them. The said RY,J CRP_2402_2024 attempts were resisted by the revision petitioners and the respondents threatened to come again and occupy the property forcibly. When the revision petitioners approached the SHO, Choutuppal, to take necessary action, the police refused to do so, on the pretext that the dispute is civil in nature. Therefore, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.236 of 2023 before the trial Court seeking police protection.
4. The respondents opposed the said petition before the trial Court by filing counter alleging that the revision petitioners have tried to take undue advantage of the ex parte injunction granted by the trial Court. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the suit is filed with the ulterior motive of illegally grabbing the property belonging to the respondents. The lands of the revision petitioners are elsewhere and they have nothing to do with the alleged suit schedule property. The case of the respondents is that the revision petitioners are not in actual possession, but want to take illegal possession by filing a suit.
5. The trial Court considered the question as to whether the revision petitioners are entitled to grant of police protection as prayed for and dismissed the said application on the ground that when the alleged interference took place there was only ad interim injunction i.e., on 10.07.2023. Further, temporary injunction was granted on merits by 2 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 disposing the I.A.No.585 of 2022 vide order dated 03.06.2024. Since there was no injunction granted on merits in I.A.No.585 of 2022 as on the alleged date of interference i.e., on 10.07.2023 and there is no allegation of interference after granting of temporary injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2022 on 03.06.2024, the petition filed seeking police protection has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioners pleaded that on 10.07.2023, the respondents and their associates have entered into the suit schedule property, which is in possession of the revision petitioners and therefore, there is need for grant of police protection and therefore, they approached the police. While so, the trial Court has erroneously concluded that there was no violation of injunction order and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled for police protection. According to the revision petitioners, the finding is self contradictory as the same Court has made injunction absolute, but denied police protection in two different interlocutory applications on the same day. The finding of the trial Court is that there is no proof of interference in the form of any complaint given to the police or any other means and such observation is incorrect. Since the temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.585 of 2022 on 03.06.2024, the 3 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 revision petitioners claim that police protection ought to have been granted. Hence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and police protection be granted.
7. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 before this Court to receive copy of complaint dated 01.07.2024 with Police Station Choutuppal and copy of the injunction order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022 in O.S.No.235 of 2022, which are to be considered for granting police protection.
8. During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction to restrain respondents from entering into suit schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners along with interlocutory application in I.A.No.585 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction and in the said application, ad interim injunction was granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 by dispensing with notice to respondents. On 10.07.2023, there was interference by the respondents and therefore, the interlocutory application under revision i.e., I.A.No.236 of 2023 was filed seeking police protection. I.A.No.585 of 2022 and I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022 were heard and disposed of simultaneously. I.A.No.585 of 2022 was allowed by making the ad interim injunction 4 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 absolute and I.A.No.236 of 2023 was dismissed refusing to grant police protection. The trial Court while concluding that the revision petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled for grant of temporary injunction has also concluded that on alleged date i.e., on 10.07.2023 only ad interim injunction was in force and therefore, on the basis of the said order police protection cannot be granted. Further, it is held that though temporary injunction is made absolute vide orders in I.A.No.585 of 2022 dated 03.06.2024 no instance of interference is cited after grant of said order. Therefore, it is observed by the trial Court that there are no grounds to grant police protection.
9. In this context, learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Bijiga Papa Rao v. Jonnalgadda Srinivas Rao 1 , wherein it is held that police aid can be granted in deserving and appropriate cases under Section 151 of CPC and sanctity of orders and decrees of Court cannot be allowed to be invaded and flouted in the name of lame, feeble and unreasonable excuses and explanations. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy 2, wherein it is held that when there is breach or disobedience or violation of order of injunction granted by the Court, 1 2015 (2) ALD 171 2 2014 (2) ALD 281 5 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 police protection may be granted to uphold the rule of law and unless such action is taken rule of law will not prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively implemented. Reference is made to the judgment of Madras High Court in N. Karpagam v. Deivanaiammal @ Deivathal3, wherein it is held that the civil Court can give directions to render aid to the parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction granted by the Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no flaw in the impugned order as the I.A.No.236 of 2023 was filed before the temporary injunction was made absolute in I.A.No.585 of 2022 vide order dated 03.06.2024. When the alleged interference took place on 10.07.2023 there is only ad interim injunction, which was granted without considering the merits of case of both the parties and therefore, there was no ground to grant police aid for alleged interference on 10.07.2023. However, after grant of temporary injunction on 03.06.2024 there is no instance of interference and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed seeking police protection.
11. Referring to I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed in the present revision, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the police complaint given on 3 AIR 2003 MAD 219 6 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 01.07.2024 alleging interference by the respondents in the suit schedule property. This complaint was given after passing of the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 and order in I.A.No.585 of 2022. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in case there is any new cause of action for grant of police protection on the basis of police complaint given on 01.07.2024 a fresh interlocutory application has to be filed seeking police protection, but I.A.No.236 of 2023 filed for cause of action which allegedly arose on 10.07.2023 is not maintainable.
12. Undisputed facts are that the petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit for perpetual injunction is filed alleging interference by the respondents and I.A.No.585 of 2022 was filed seeking temporary injunction and ad interim injunction was granted on 09.09.2022 in the said I.A.. Thereafter, almost after ten months there was an interference by the respondents on 10.07.2023 and therefore, I.A.No.236 of 2023 i.e., I.A. under revision was filed, but the same was dismissed. While the revision petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to grant of police protection on the basis of the judgments in Bijiga Papa Rao, Gampala Anthaiah and N. Karpagam (all cited supra), the version of the learned counsel for the respondents is that no police protection can be granted on the basis of ad interim injunction, which is not passed on merits. 7
RY,J CRP_2402_2024
13. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the judgment of this Court in Shanagonda Sampath v. Shanagonda Akhila 4, wherein it is held as under:
"47. 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."
14. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, held as under:
"7. It is now well settled law that only when there is a decree for permanent injunction and only when there is an order of temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is made absolute after hearing both the parties, then only the Courts usually either the civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant police aid for effective implementation of the said permanent injunction decree or a temporary injunction order which is passed on merits. But when the ex parte ad- interim injunction is granted without hearing the respondents and when the same is not made absolute granting a temporary injunction order, till the disposal of the suit, on merits, the Courts will not usually order for grant of police aid for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction order. Since it is not an order on merits after hearing both the parties, the Courts would be very slow in granting police aid, till the possession and rights of the parties are determined after enquiry based on evidence."
15. As per the aforesaid judgments, police protection cannot be granted on the basis of ad interim injunction unless extraordinary circumstances prevail. In normal course police aid can be granted only after the order of 4 C.R.P.No.2536 of 2024, dated 09.06.2025 5 (2021) 1 ALT 426 8 RY,J CRP_2402_2024 temporary injunction is passed on merits in an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
16. Irrespective of whether police aid can be granted or not on the basis of the ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 in I.A.No.585 of 2022, the fact remains that no iota of evidence has been produced to demonstrate that there was interference by the respondents while adjudicating the impugned application under revision. Only after the impugned order was passed dismissing I.A.No.236 of 2023 on 03.06.2024 and just before filing the present revision petition a police complaint dated 01.07.2024 is lodged with the police by the revision petitioners to show that there is interference by the respondents. For instance, even if it is acknowledged that the contents of the police complaint dated 01.07.2024 are true, the same cannot be basis for passing of order of police protection in I.A.No.236 of 2023 as there is no concrete proof to believe interference by the respondents prior to 01.07.2024. The complaint given to police on 01.07.2024 may give rise to a fresh cause of action seeking police protection in view of injunction order granted in I.A.No.585 of 2022 dated 03.06.2024. As such, there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9
RY,J CRP_2402_2024
17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 20.08.2025 GVR 10