The High Court · 2025

2. Kannekanti Savitramma, Wo. Srinivasa Chary, Age. 46 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Kommareddyguda Village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Kanchanapally Kanakamma, W/o. Achary, Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.G. Bheemanapally Village, PA Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RespondenU Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction by granting Police protection in relation to suit schedule property, till the disposal of l.A.No.66o'f 2022 in O.S.No. 80 of 2022 on the file of Honorable ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVARAKONDA, pending disposal of the above CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAFI C.R.P.No.3 1 5 of2025 o RDER: This Cirit Revision Petition is filed :un'det Artic'e 227 of the Con strtution of India aggrieved by the order' dt. 18.1 t.2Oi2L in IA.No.335 of 2023 in I'A'No'66 ol 2t)22 in O.S.No.SO c,f 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Iudge' Devarakoncla,

2. Hearc learned counsel for the petitioner' D'esplte' notice beilrr1 t,aken out to respondents No' 1 & 3' th'r same isreturnec.,,l'ithpostalendorsement'addresseertfused'' Hence, the said notice is deemed as served in the right of the decisi<rn of the Apex Court in C'C'Alui Httii Vs' Insofar as the Patapettg Muhammed and anothert ' notice taktrn out to 2'd respondent is concerned' despite same being r;erved on the said respondent' thcrr: is no representatiotr on her behalf either in person or through counsel. F'etr-rsed the record. ' 1zoot1 o scc s:;s I 2

3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit fi1ed for perpetual injunction and petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application

4. The case of the petitioner is that he had fited the subject suit against the respondents/ defendants for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession enjoyment over . the suit schedule property.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially al ad-interirn injunction order has been granted in his favour uide I.A.No.66 of 2022 on 21.02.2022; and that as the respondents sought to interfere with the petitioner's possession in violation of the said order, he had filed the underlying interlocutory application .u2., I.A.No.335 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC seeking for grant of police aid.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Court below taking note of the subsistence of ad-interim injunction-oftler passed in ,,IA.No.66 of 2022 in the suit, had allowed the underlying interlocutory appiication on I i /, 3

28.06.2024 granting police aid/protection for elfective implementati,rn of the injunction order dt.21.02.202.2; that aggrieved b',, t.he said order, the respondents here n had approached this Court by way of revision utde CRP .N'>.27 I I of 2024; alrl that this Court by taking note of the far:t that the order of zd-interim injunction granted being im ex- parte order, had set aside the said order granting police protection ernd remitted the matter back to the trlal Court for considerat.ion alresh.

7. Petitic,nr:r contends that on this Court setting: aside the order g;rzurting police protection at the behest of the respondents herein and directing the trial Co,rrt to consider the application afresh, the Court belo'.v has rejected thr: ttnderlying interlocutory application, on the ground thzLt the petitioner having filed an application under Order- >XXIX Rule 2A of the CPC uide LA.No.507 of 2024, wtti<:h is pending for filing of counter t,y the respondents,,:annot maintain the underlying application under SectiorL 151 ofCPC 4

8. Petitioner contends that the scope of an appiication filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CpC is to punish the respondents for violation or breach of the injunction, while the relief sought for by the petitioner in the underlying application is to grant police aid/protection for implementation of the order passed by the Court below, and thus, the scope of both the applications are entirely different; and that the Court below has misdirected itself rvhile considering the underlying application and erred in rejecting the same. 9 . In support of the aforesaid contention, reiiance is piaced on the decision of this Court in E Venkatrqman Naidu us. Ramchandra Naidu2.

10. I have taken note of the above submissions made.

11. Firstlg, it is to be noted that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC deals with consequences on disobedience or breach of the injunction and the said provision deals with the power, which a Court is required to exercise for ' zors131 aLr 23a 5 disobedien,::e or breach of injunction order by pu.tishing the person, v,'ho is found guilty of such disobedicnce or breach by detrlining in civil prison.

12. While b1' the petition filed under Section 151 c,f CpC, the petitior- er is seeking to invoke the inherent llowers conferred or-r the Court to grant him the relief of pr,rviding police protr:crion/aid for implementation of the injunction order passe,J in IA.No.66 of 2O22 to enable him to enloy the fruits of tl-r c injunction.

13. Thus, tJre scope and operation of both the pro.,,isions is entirely d jflbrent and there is no interconnection br:tween both the prr;vir;ions.

14. If tl-r e afcresaid aspect is taken into consideration, by the underlyins interlocutory application, the petitionr:r had sought for b,: ng provided with police aid/protecticn for effective imlrlc:nentation of the injunction order passed in IA.No.66 of '.21)22 on 21 .02.2022. The Court belou,having initially fourLc that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with such pt-otection, however, on a challenge being made to the said o:,ler before this Court uid,e CRp.No.2i 11 of 6 2024, this Court had set aside the said order as the injunction order was an ex-parte order, had remitted the mater back to the Court below. On this Court remitting the matter back for fresh consideration, -the Court below took a different vierv holding that since, the petitioner had already filed an application ulde I.A.No.SO7 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 2,{ of CPC alleging violation of the order in IA.No.66 of 2022, seeking to punish the respondents by ser-rding them to civil prison, the petitioner cannot maintain the underlying application, dismissed the same. However, the Court below failed to notice that the petitioner 1S entitled to seck both the reliefs, which are independent of one another ald separate petitions filed for gralting both the reliefs are maintainable.

15. The aforesaid view of this Court also finds support from the decision rendered in the case relied .upon by the petitioner in E Venkatrdman Naidu's case(2 supra).

16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dt. 18.11.2024 in IA.No.335 of 2023 in I.A.No.66 of 2022 in O.S.No.8O of l 2022 on thr file of the Junior Civil Judge, DevarrLkonda, dismissing tt- e said application cannot be held as validly passed for -t to be sustained L7 . Accord,.ngly, the Civil Revision Petition is allou ed; the impugned o-rler, dt. 18.1,1.2024 in IA.No.335 of 2023 in I.A.No.66 ol ?.O22 in O.S.No.8O of 2022 on the file, of the Junior Cii'il Judge, Devarakonda, is set asidlt; and consequenill , IA.No.335 of 2023, is allowed. No ord,)r as to

18. Consr:qr-rently, misceilaneous petitions, il any, pending shalI stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-N.SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR I DEP \',. I .J SECTTON OFFTCER To, 'l . The Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District 2. One CC to SRl. THOOTM SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copie:; HIGH COURT DATED:,111041202ti .) ORDER CRP.No.315 of 2025 ( .-. rHf. S14 14' J o e t r z a 1z npr Zm De.sDqT(:F9 o .d t ALLOWING TI]1] CIVI]- ITEVIS]ON PETITION