Telangana High Court
Gudibanda Ramchandar Rao vs Garika Venkata Sambaiah And 2 Others on 23 November, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.1131 OF 2020
ORDER:
This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 25.09.2020 in I.A.No.276 of 2020 in O.S.No.299 of 2020, on the file of the Special Assistant Agent & S.D.M. (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, whereby the said application filed by petitioner/plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC read with Rule 42 (C) of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 for interim injunction order and police protection and to restrain the respondents/defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property, was allowed, granting injunction.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. Revision petitioner herein is defendant No.2 in the suit and respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in the suit.
2
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.299 of 2020 against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.276 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 42 (C) of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 for the relief of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. On 25.09.2020, the Court below passed orders of ad-interim injunction and also granted police protection. The said order reads as under :
"The petitioner filed a petition Under Rule 42 (C) of A.P. Agency Rules-1924 for seeking interim injunction order and Police Protection and to restrain the Respondents/Defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner schedule property coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Mutyala Ramchandraiah @ (Kishore) 3 B.A., LL.B., Advocate, Bhadrachalam for Petitioner/plaintiff and upon perusing the documents filed in support of the petition and after hearing the arguments of the advocate this court doth order that "interim injunction" be issued restraining the respondents/defendants, their henchmen or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff in the schedule mentioned property situated at Raghavapuram Revenue Village, Sujathanagar Mandal of Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. The Interim injection order has granted to till further orders".
Aggrieved by the above orders, defendant No.2 preferred the present revision petition.
7. Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in I.A.No.276 of 2020 was only ad- interim order and until and unless ad-interim order become final in favour of the party who obtained said order, the court cannot grant police aid. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2016 on 19.11.2016 before the court of Agency Divisional Officer at Kothagudem and also filed an application 4 in I.A. 20 of 2016 for interim injunction and interim injunction was granted in his favour in respect of the same schedule property and subsequently, the said suit was transferred on the point of jurisdiction, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.7507 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction and the same suffers with material irregularity as well as illegality. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in SENTHAN PROPERTIES, HYDERABAD v. S.V.S. INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS1.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1 over the suit schedule property and the court below had rightly granted ex parte interim order and police protection and that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and the present revision is not maintainable.
1 2021 (2) ALD 494 (TS) 5
9. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the counsel, the point that arises for consideration is - Whether the order under revision granting ad-interim injunction order and police protection, at the stage of ad-interim injunction, is sustainable in law?
10. Undisputedly, the impugned order passed by the court below is an ad-interim order. The court below before passing the ad-interim order of injunction has to satisfy three essential principles while granting temporary injunction. The impugned order specifically shows that the court below had not addressed itself to the three essential principles for grant of ad-interim injunction. The court below has not assigned any proper and valid reasons while granting ad-interim injunction orders in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Normally, the ex-parte ad-interim orders are issued on the basis of averments contained in the plaint and affidavit of the plaintiff. The true picture emerges only after full-fledged trial and on hearing both sides. Though the courts are empowered to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction order but, issuance of police protection simultaneously is not sustainable in law.
6
11. In the instant case, the court below has not only committed illegality and irregularity but also passed an irregular order of granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction order without recording any reasons and without satisfying the essential principles for grant of ad-interim injunction and simultaneously ordering police protection in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants. The court below has committed error in passing the orders and simultaneously granting ad-interim injunction and police protection before passing the final order in I.A.No.276 of 2020 on merits. At this state, it is apt to refer the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in SENTHAN PROPERTIES, HYDERABAD's case (supra), wherein it is held that :
It is an admitted fact that the impugned order is an ad interim order. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner herein had filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court challenging the ad interim order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.1671 of 2019. Of course, the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Unless and until the interim injunction is made absolute and the rights of the parties are crystallized, the Court cannot normally order police aid petition because the party in whose favour the ad interim order was granted may take advantage of the situation and under the guise of the 7 said order that party may cause undue hardship to the other party. Such is the ratio decidendi in all the cases cites supra. If the petitioner herein against whom an order of ex parte injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction, the first respondent can take recourse to file a petition under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC, which lays down a punitive measure for the purpose of compelling a party to comply with the order of injunction. But the Court cannot straight away order police aid petition without disposing of the interim injunction petition because granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the opposite party, without hearing whom an injunction was granted against him. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below was in error in passing orders on the petition for police aid, without disposing of I.A.No.1671 of 2019 on merits.
12. Interestingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that the revision petitioner had already obtained ad-interim injunction orders in respect of the same schedule property against respondent No.1 - plaintiff and other defendants in the suit O.S.No.37 of 2021, filed by him wherein interim orders were also granted in I.A.No.20 of 2016 in favour of the revision petitioner in respect of the same schedule property pending on the file of Agency Divisional Officer Court at Kothagudem. Subsequently, the said suit 8 was transferred to the Special Assistant Agent & S.D.M. (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam, as per the directions of this Court. So, the temporary injunction orders are already in force in respect of the schedule property against respondent No.1 herein before passing of the impugned order impugned by the court below.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the order impugned suffers from illegality and, material irregularity and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.
14. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.276 of 2020 in O.S.No.299 of 2020 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J Date: 23.11.2022 Yvk