Telangana High Court
Shanagonda Sampath vs Shanagonda Akhila on 9 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
Between:
Shanagonda Sampath and
another .. Petitioners
Vs.
Shanagonda Akhila and
another .. Respondents
DATE OF COMMON ORDER PASSED: 09.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
% Delivered on: 09-06-2025
Between:
# Shanagonda Sampath and
another .. Petitioners
Vs.
$ Shanagonda Akhila and
Another .. Respondents
! For Petitioners Sri B.Jagadish, learned counsel
^ For Respondents Sri R.Dayakar, learned counsel
<Gist --
> Head Note --
? Cases Referred
1. AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB)
2. AIR 1971 AP 53
3. (2007) 12 SCC 201
4. AIR (1962) SC 327
5. (2006) 4 SCC 501
6. (2010) 2 ALD 41
7. 1998 (1) ALD 453
8. (2010) 2 ALD 732
9. (2005) 3 ALD 772
10. (2015) 2 ALD 171
11. (2015) 2 ALT 59
12. (2014) 2 ALD 281
13. (2013) 2 ALD 626
14. (2009) 3 ALD 692
15. (2013) 6 ALD 104
16. (2014) 2 ALT 319
3
17. (2000) 6 ALD 449
18. (2000) 2 ALT 606
19. (2005) 6 ALT 710
20. (2010) 6 ALD 62
21. (2006) 5 ALD 695
22. AIR 2003 Madras 2019
23. (2011) 11 SCC 275
24. 2017 (1) ALD 503
25. 2024 (6) ALD 696
26. 2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB)
27. 2021 SCC OnLine TS 607
28. 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1148
29. 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2783
30. 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2384
31. AIR 1960 SC 137
32. 2023 (1) ALT 765
33. 1991 (1) ALT 366
34. 2010 (9) SCC 437
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri B.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.Dayakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.150 of 2022 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar.
3. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.428 of 2024 against the petitioners herein/defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.0.12½ guntas in Sy.No.465K belongs to the 1st plaintiff/1st respondent herein and the land to the extent of 0.02 ½ gutnas in Sy.No.465M/B and Ac.0.10guntas in Sy.No.465K and in total Ac.0.12½ guntas situated at Mallapur Village shivar of Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, 'the subject property'). Along with the said suit, they have also filed I.A.No.172 of 2021 seeking ad-interim injunction. Vide order dated 06.09.2021, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge 5 at Karimnagar, granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners herein/defendants restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
4. It is apt to note that the said order dated 06.10.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 is a contest order on consideration of the counter filed by the petitioners herein/defendants herein and on hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal vide CMA (SR) No.78 of 2024. It appears there is delay in preferring the said appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1345 of 2024 to condone the delay in preferring the said appeal and the said Interlocutory Application is still pending.
5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.150 of 2022 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC to grant police aid on the following grounds:-
i. Vide order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar granted temporary injunction restraining the 6 petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. ii. It is a contest order.
iii. No appeal was preferred challenging the said order. iv. The petitioners herein/defendants and their parents interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiffs over the subject property and disturbing their possession. Therefore, they have lodged a complaint with the Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021. They have also furnished a copy of the aforesaid order to the police. They are not taking action stating that the dispute is civil in nature. v. By taking advantage of the same, the petitioners/defendants and their parents perpetrating their illegal activities against the respondents/plaintiffs by not permitting them to enter into the suit schedule property for cultivation. Therefore, they sought police aid.
6. The said application was opposed by the petitioners herein/defendants contending as follows:-
i. The respondents/plaintiffs created a false story to damage the reputation of the petitioners/defendants in the village. 7 ii. The petitioners/defendants and their parents are doing cultivation of the said property since thirty (30) years and they are in possession of the subject property till today. iii. They are eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land. iv. As father of the respondents herein/plaintiffs is not taking care of petitioners/defendants, the parents of the defendants filed a case vide M.C.No.24 of 2021 against the respondents herein/plaintiffs father. The respondents/plaintiffs lodged a false complaint with the Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021. Therefore, there are no merits in the said application and sought to dismiss the same.
7. Vide order dated 28.03.2024, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, allowed the said I.A.No.150 of 2022 holding that the petitioners herein/defendants violated the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021. The petitioners herein did not file any document in support of their contentions opposing the said application. The petitioners herein/defendants cannot violate the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021. Therefore, respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for police protection. With the said observations, vide impugned order dated 28.03.2024, 8 learned trial Court allowed I.A.No.150 of 2022 directing the Station House Officer, Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur, to provide police protection to implement the said order dated 06.09.2021 till disposal of the suit or until further orders.
8. As discussed supra, the order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 is a contest order and the same is on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and on hearing them. Though the said order is dated 06.09.2021, the petitioners herein/defendants preferring an appeal only in the year 2024, that too, along with an application to condone the delay vide I.A.No.1345 of 2021 in CMA (SR) No.978 of 2024. The said application is pending.
9. It is the specific contention of the respondents herein/plaintiffs that the petitioners herein/defendants along with their parents interfered with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and tried to disturb their possession. Therefore, they have lodged a complaint dated 27.09.2021 with Police LMD Colony, Thimmapur who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021. They have also filed a copy of the said First Information Report. If the petitioners herein/defendants aggrieved by the said order dated 06.09.2021, they have to prefer an appeal. They cannot 9 interfere with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It amounts to violation of the said order. To enforce the said order, the police aid is required.
10. The petitioners filed the present revision contending that the learned trial Court did not consider the pleadings of the parties in the present I.A.No.150 of 2022. The petitioners herein are joint shareholders of the suit schedule property. They are in physical possession of the same as on the date. They are also cultivating the said land since last 30 years. Trial Court did not give any reasons while granting police aid. They have not filed any documents in support of their case. Though a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021 was registered on the complaint lodged by respondents/plaintiffs dated 27.09.2021, the police have not initiated any further action. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.No.150 of 2022 lacks the grounds on which the police aid is to be granted. Trial court missed the crucial point that the affidavit in support of police aid was on 27.04.2022, but the alleged interference was on 27.09.2021. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid I.A.No.150 of 2022 and granted police aid erroneously. 10
11. Respondents/plaintiffs filed counter contending that on consideration of the entire aspects including the complaint dated 27.09.2021, Cr.No.15 of 2021 and other aspects, learned trial Court granted police aid. There is no error in it.
12. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is relevant to note that the petitioners herein/defendants are restrained by way of an order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In the said order, learned trial Court gave a specific finding that respondents herein/plaintiffs are in possession of the subject property and they are entitled for injunction. Learned trial Court also considered triple point formula while granting temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they have to prefer an appeal. Though the said order is dated 06.09.2021, they have preferred an appeal only in the year 2024 that too, along with an application to condone delay. The said application is pending. Therefore, they cannot claim that they are in possession of the property and they are cultivating the same since last 30 years. 11 Therefore, during subsistence of the said injunction order, the petitioners herein cannot interfere with the possession of the respondents herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It amounts to violation of the said order.
13. Even in the present revision, it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein/defendants that they are joint shareholders of the suit schedule property, they are in physical possession of the same and cultivating the same since last 30 years. The said contentions of the petitioners herein are contrary to the order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 and the findings therein. On the complaint dated 27.01.2021, the Police LMD Colony, Thimmapur, have already registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021 against the petitioners herein/defendants herein. Therefore, the petitioners cannot disturb the possession of the respondents herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they cannot violate the order dated 06.09.2021. If the petitioners herein/defendants interfere with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property violating the order dated 06.09.2021, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for police aid. There is no other option to them. They have also lodged a complaint in the Police 12 station, but the Police are not taking any action on the said complaint stating that the dispute is civil in nature. Therefore, they have filed I.A.No.150 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid. On consideration of the entire aspects, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.03.2024, learned trial Court granted police aid to the respondents/plaintiffs and directed the Station House Officer, Police LMD Colony, Thimmapur, to provide police aid to the respondents/plaintiffs in order to implement the order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021. There is no error in it.
14. It is relevant to note that this Court came across several revision petitions/writ petitions filed by parties seeking police aid alleging violation of ex parte ad interim injunction, decree and judgment restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, execution orders etc. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to give more insights on the issue of consideration of applications filed seeking police aid and also precedential history. 13 PRECEDENTIAL HISTORY
15. In Satyanarayan Tiwari v. SHO1, Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that 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.
16. In Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni Narasimham vs. P. Narasimham 2, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 1 AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB) 2 AIR 1971 AP 53 14 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 CPC, 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 3, Division Bench of Apex Court reiterated the said order. .
17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal 4, A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paragraph No.18 specifically held with regard to inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction and the same is as follows:-
18. There is difference of opinion between the High Court on this point. One view is that a Court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the circumstances do not fall within the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code: Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interim injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction:
Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm Bichchha Ram v. Firm Baldeo Sahai (7), Bhagat Singh v. jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery owners' Association v. Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion that the latter view is correct and that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue 3 (2007) 12 SCC 201 4 AIR (1962) SC 327 15 temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such expression in s. 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by O. XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them. The effect of the expression 'if it is so prescribed' is only this that when the rules prescribe the circumstances in which the temporary injunction can be issued, ordinarily the Court is not to use its inherent powers to make the necessary orders in the interests of justice, but is merely to see whether the circumstances of the case bring it within the prescribed rule. if the provisions of s. 94 were not there in the Code, the Court could still issue temporary injunctions, but it could do that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. No party has a right to insist on the Court's exercising that jurisdiction and the Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction only when it considers it absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to do so. it is in the incidence of the exercise of the power of the Court to issue temporary injunction that the provisions of s. 94 of the Code have their effect and not in taking away the right of the Court to exercise its inherent power.
18. The 3 Judge Bench further held that civil Court has power under Section 151 of CPC to grant police aid for implementation of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and prevent abuse of process, but the civil Courts must exercise the said power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. When the parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order, the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the 16 aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. When in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly dispossess the other, the Court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged.
19. In P.R.Muralidharan v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar5, the Apex Court held that 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 5 (2006) 4 SCC 501 17 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 functions) when the writ petitioner's rights to do so are open to question as manifested by the pleadings themselves. It held that 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, it held:-
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 18 jurisdiction under Article 226of 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.
20. In Polavarapuru Nagamani v. Paruchuri Koteshwar Rao 6, Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 6 (2010) 2 ALD 41 19 view to the view taken by earlier Division Bench in Satyanarayana Tiwari and the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra).
21. The Division Bench further held that it has noticed that 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.
22. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, the Apex Court held and laid down certain parameters which are 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 20 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 very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court."
23. In J. Jagannath Reddy vs. Laxmi Devi 7 a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff was vacated and appeal preferred by the plaintiff was pending. During pendency of the said appeal, 7 1998 (1) ALD 453 21 defendants sought for police aid under Section 151 of C.P.C. Thus, the Division 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 21 Rule 32 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.
24. In D.Tulja Devi v. Margam Shankar 8 Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 CPC seeking police aid. The Division Bench held that EP filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC seeking perpetual injunction cannot be disposed granting police aid.
8 (2010) 2 ALD 732 22
25. In Sangu Brahmam v. SHO 9 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 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. 9 (2005) 3 ALD 772 23
26. In Bijiga Paparao v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao 10, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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.
27. In HPCL vs. Govt.of A.P. 11, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that injunction was granted in favour of HPCL, which was violated by respondents/defendants. Therefore, on examination of the said facts, the High Court granted police aid in favour of HPCL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. In Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy12 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 injunction, plaintiff filed an application before the trial court seeking police aid alleging interference by the defendants 10 (2015) 2 ALD 171 11 (2015) 2 ALT 59 12 (2014) 2 ALD 281 24 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.
29. In B.Chandrasekhar Reddy v. Nagaraju Yadav13 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court granted interim injunction to protect damaging of the quarry by the respondents in I.A. until disposal of the suit. Trial Court also granted police aid. The defendants filed revision challenging the said order. On examination of the facts, the High Court held that the trial Court is right in granting police aid in favour of the plaintiffs. 13
(2013) 2 ALD 626 25
30. In Ganuboina Venkateswara Rao v. Pakalapati Basavaiah14 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the defendants violated temporary injunction granted by trial court and on the application filed by the plaintiffs, trial Court granted police aid for the purpose of implementation of the said order. The said order granting police aid to the plaintiff was under challenge. On examination of the facts, the Division Bench held that the trial court is right in granting protection to the plaintiff for implementation of the said order.
31. In Vangetti Bal Reddy v. Karagani Balaiah15, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed written statement in the suit resisting the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The suit was decreed. Subsequently, defendants filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and got the ex parte decree set aside and the suit was restored to file and temporary injunction granted by the trial Court was subsisting. Despite the ad interim injunction against the defendants, they attempted to violate the order. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought grant of police aid. On the 14 (2009) 3 ALD 692 15 (2013) 6 ALD 104 26 application filed by the plaintiffs, trial Court granted police aid. The same was challenged. The High Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court in granting police aid.
32. In Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao v. Bommaji Danam16, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 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.
33. In Goli Kota Reddy v. Goli Rajagopala Reddy17, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that civil Court cannot refer the matter of implementation of a decree for perpetual injunction to police, as it will be the negation of the right of the judgment debtor available under Order XXI CPC, and that the executing Court, without 16 (2014) 2 ALT 319 17 (2000) 6 ALD 449 27 deciding the application filed under Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC, cannot refer the matter to police for implementation of the decree.
34. In P. Shankar Rao v. Smt. B.Susheela 18, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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.
35. In Khaja Shoukat Ali v. Khairunnissa Begum 19 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a decree for injunction was passed by the trial Court and it was confirmed by the first and second appellate Courts. Thereafter, the defendants filed a suit against the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property. The plaintiffs in the earlier suit 18 (2000) 2 ALT 606 19 (2005) 6 ALT 710 28 sought police aid. The defendants in the earlier suit and plaintiffs in the second Suit, challenged the order granting police aid by the trial Court. The Division Bench confirmed the order granting police aid to the plaintiffs in the first suit.
36. In N.K.Leasing constructions Ltd. V. Sugan Chand Sankla 20, Neetha Chintawar v. Bodugam Gopi 21 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order granted by the trial Court granting police aid for protection of interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs to protect their possession.
37. In N.Korpagam v. P.Deivanaiammal 22, the trial Court granted ex parte interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the same was made absolute. The plaintiff sought for police aid and the same was allowed. In revision, the Madras High Court confirmed the order granted by the trial Court. In K.K. Veluswamy v. N.Palanisamy 23, the Division Bench of Apex Court reiterated the said principle.
20 (2010) 6 ALD 62 21 (2006) 5 ALD 695 22 AIR 2003 Madras 2019 23 (2011) 11 SCC 275 29
38. In A. Bharathi v. State of Telangana 24, the 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.
39. In Ghouse Mohiuddin Ali v. M/s Muslim Educational Social and Cultural Organization 25, Division Bench of this Court, held that High Court is having power to grant police aid to implement the injunction orders granted by civil Court.
40. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. The Station House Officer, Madhapur P.S.Hyderabad26 A Division Bench of erstwhile 24 2017 (1) ALD 503 25 2024 (6) ALD 696 26 2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB) 30 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with a matter arose under SARFAESI Act, placing reliance on the principle laid down in Meera Chauhan (supra), considered power of the civil Court to direct police officers to provide assistance in the execution of orders or decree. The Division Bench in paragraph No.43 held as follows:-
43. The power of the civil Court to direct police officers to render assistance is well recognized. When parties violate orders of injunction or stay, the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit, and also order police protection for implementation of such an order (Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, (2007) 12 SCC 201)
41. This Court in Kuruma Vanaja v. State of Telangana 27, directed the police to extend police protection to implement the injunction order granted by the Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam.
42. Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.Chandraiah @ Y.Chandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad 28, referring to decision of the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra), held that a writ is 27 2021 SCC OnLine TS 607 28 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1148 31 maintainable on a complaint that a party had not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner or when a party was deliberately flouting the decree or order and the police authorities were not providing him the required protection in terms of the decree or order, passed by a Court having jurisdiction.
43. In Satish Mutually Aided Co-op. Housing Society Limited v. State of Telangana 29, a Division Bench of this Court held that once there is an order of injunction and there is direction to provide police aid for implementation of the prohibitory injunction for any dispossession of them, police are bound to provide aid.
44. Thatti Narsimha Rao vs. State of Telangana 30, this Court held that on receipt of an application or representation by the Police authorities for grant of police protection and if it is found that respondent/s are violating injunction order, necessary police protection shall be given to the petitioner/s in implementing injunction order.
45. In Satyanarayan Lakshminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale31, wherein the Apex Court elucidated the 29 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2783 30 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2384 31 AIR 1960 SC 137 32 scope of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the High Court possesses wide powers to issue directions and orders to ensure justice between parties and to enforce law of the land.
46. In Kabbakula Padma vs. State of Telangana 32, trial court granted an ex parte interim injunction, plaintiff alleged that the same was violated by the defendant. Plaintiff approached High Court seeking police aid. Learned Single Judge, held that the plaintiff is not entitled for police aid. Plaintiff preferred intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Division Bench dismissed the said appeal holding that plaintiff is not entitled to enforce an ex parte ad-interim injunction. However, Division Bench granted liberty to the plaintiff to avail alternative remedies available to him.
COURT VIEW:
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.
32
2023 (1) ALT 765 33
48. In the light of the same, the following parameters are laid down for filing and considering applications filed seeking police aid:-
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.
ii. 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. iii. The trial Court shall consider all the assertions made by the parties in the petition and counters seeking police aid. iv. 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 34 file an application before the trial Court seeking police aid instead of submitting 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.
v. 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.
vi. 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. .
vii. 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 35 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. viii. 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. ix. 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 seek an injunction from the appellate Court, and in case of its violation, may also seek police aid from the appellate Court.
x. 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. 36 xi. Trial Court cannot grant police aid suo-motu.
xii. In Ch.Veeramma v. Mahaboob Subhani 33, 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 33 1991 (1) ALT 366 37 status quo order and it will avoid misuse of status quo order and multiplicity of litigation.
xiii. 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.
xiv. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemanth Vimalnath Narichania and others34, 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 34 2010 (9) SCC 437 38 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. 39
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. 40
Therefore, trial Courts shall consider the aforesaid principle laid down by Apex Court while dealing with petitions filed seeking police aid.
xv. 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.
49. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:09.06.2025.
Note: L.R.copy to be marked.
b/o. vvr