The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 15,1 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased.to f"i.it mu petitioner to iile copies of the written-., Statements filed by the 'O"t"nO"nt. irlo 1 and 2 in OS No 376 of 2024 on the file of the Honorable ll Addl I i,l l Senior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar and receive th(! iame as additional material papers rn the above CRP No 140 of 2025 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the (ii cumstances stated ih the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police st;l on, Ranga Reddy District to implement the orders in I A. No. 144 of 2024 in O l. No. 376 of 2024, daled 24- 07- 2A24 pendlng the disposal of main Civil Revisil r Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. SETTY RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondents: ASHFAQ AHMED The Court made the following: ORDER '.4.. ./,/ '/' THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CML REVISION PETITION No.1 40 of2o25 ORDER: Hcard Sri. Setty Ravr Teja, learned counseL for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ashlaq Ahmed, learned counsel lor the respondents. Perused the record

2. This Civil Revision Pctition is prelerrecl aggrieved by the order datccl 19.12.2024 in [.A. No. 159 ol 2024 in I.A. No. 744 of 2024 tn O.S. No. 376 ol 2024 on the lile of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judgc, Ranga Reddv District at l,.B.Nagar, (for short, 'the trial Court') wherein, the petition liled uncler Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant police protection by the Station House - Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, for implementation of orders in I.A. No. 114 ot 2024 ir O.S. No. 376 ol 2024, has been dismissed

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No. 376 of 2024.

4. The brief facts of the case are that thc plain tiff fiied a suit in 0 S. No. 376 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the 2 RI./ op 1,10 2025 defendalts from causing interference and ol; s l'uction over the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plain ,iff over the suit schedule propert5. consisting of agriculturzLl land in Survel- No.50/28 admcasurins Ac.3 20 gts si[uated:r1 I Iadnrnpallr-village and grampanchayath, Shamshabad Mandal, Ra;-r ga Redd-"- District. The plaintiff claims to be the absoiute owner ar:, i possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased th c same u nder the registercd saie deed bearing document No.28,:l 3 ol 2011 dated

16. I 1.2O 1 1 from the onginai o\rrners namel)r Non ru'ath Gobria and his family members. Nenawath Gobria and olrr :rs offercd to seil :rnd thc suit schcdulc propertJ/ and the same !) zrs purchased for vaiid sale consideration. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the trial Court granted ad-interim injun,: - cn on 24.O7.2024 and after grant of ad-interim injunction, on 01 () \ 2024, there was an attempt by the defendants to interfere with thc possessior-r of the plarntiff and therefore, I.A. No.159 of 2024 was I led seeking grant of police protection.

5. To press for grant of police aid, learne: coLlnsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble iupreme Court in Meera Chauhan o. Harshad. Bishnoi dnd ano'.: terr. wherein it is held that when there is violation of an order rf injunction, the 'zool 121 Supreme 772 i i I ) RY,.I ctp 14O 2025 i i I I I Court can exercise its inherent powers and direct the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties. The property was transferred in violation of interim order not to alienate and the possession uas delivered to third person. ln such instance. since there u'as violation of the order granted, the grant of police aid was deemed necessary.

6. Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the trrstq,hile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Gampala Anthaiah and others a. Kasarla Venkat Reddg2, wherein it is held that s'hen there is an injunctjon order, policc protection ma]' be granted. ln this case ad inteim injunction \r'as granted and the same was made absolute as the respondent chooses to remain ex parLe. Tl:e facts of the cascs in Meera Chauhan (Supra 1 ) and Gampala Anthaiah dnd others (Supra 2) where interim order was grar-rted, are not applicable to the lacts ol the present case as only ad-interim injunction was granted and it was not made absolute. 7 . F urther, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstu,hile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad ln ) E.{enkatararnq. Naidu and another a. E.Ramo,chandra Naidu '20 13 SCC OnLine AP 380 ) 4 It Y,, J c,p 110 2O2,i and q.nothers, wherein it is held that a p: ;ty rvho obtained temporary injunction orclers and is complaining r ' vi.ration of such orders, may file not onh. execution petition ur.r<rr r orcier XXI Rule 32 of the CPC] or applicatron unclcr Order XX.x.l) RLrlr. 2t.,t) of the CPC br-rt he ca' also tite an apprication seekirrrl ,olicc aid ur-rcier- Section i 51 of the Cpcl. Thcr-e is no issue abr -it rrn_r. aggricved partv seeking ltolicc :,ricl under Section 151 of th(. ( I)C. il. Further. reference is macle to judgment ol rl t: Hreh (-lourt lor the State of rerlar-rgana at H,yderaba d, in Karim ),r twctz Artadin u. the state of Terangana and othersa, u,herci r it is l-reld that llecessan'- direr:ti.ns r'r'erc gi'cr-r to the trial court . pass orders in the interim application seeking police protectior lrurt]rcr. the Andhra Pradesh f{igh c.urt at,{maravathi in cas< of sathi vinod Kumar Reddg v. State of And.hra prq.d.esh.s, treld therr rt,hen there is rvillful disobeclience, a petition under Orc r r XXXIX Rule l of the CPC ar-rd Section 151 of the CpC are mainri inable ar-rd that police aid can be granted to implement the or.rl .r. of. temporary injunction. 16 1 cu rcc l r20 '202 1 l,arcsr ('aselat\ IlaD (1.^li '2021 O Supreme {Ap) l.l2 (i I I { I i i I : I I I I I I I : I I ! l l l I i 5 RY,J crp 14O 2025

9. In case of Morusu Sreeramulu Reddg U Kareppagari Eswaraiah6, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravathi, held that r'i'hen an order of temporary injunction is violated and r.'"'hen thc plaintif[ complains the same against the delendant for committing breach, the Court is under obligation to accord protectron. lO. The said citations are not applicable to the present case as in all the said cases, lhe police aid is granted after the I.As. seeking temporan' injunctron under Order KXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC r.r,erc :LdjudicaLcd on merits. [n the instant case, the police ard u'as sought on lhe basis of ad-interim injunction order which is not an order passed on the merits. Therefore, the police aid is denied. 1 1 Learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the judgment of thc High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Seelam Chandrayudu u. State of Andhra PradeshT, wherein it is referred to case of Rcti Nrrra,mnta v, State of Andhra Pradeshs holding that question of police aid to implement ad-inteim injunction does not arise. Same principle is laid dor.r,n by the Telangana High Court tn M/s. Senthcn Properties v. M/s. S.y,S. Infra Seruices Prlaate \ 62022 l.atest Caselau, 933 1 (AP) '2oz t st:c c)nl.lnc A[) 2008 32022 Latest Casclau 9457 I I I I I I i i l I I 6 R)',u cry l4a 2O.). Limitedg stat,-rg that the Court cannot straigl r a\ a], order policc aicl r.r,ithout drsposing of interim injunctic,r L petition bccause granting police aid to impletrent an ex prr - : injun<)Lion ma\ sometrmes ctitrsc pre.judice and Itarclshrlt to opl) l;ite partv

12. From tl-re aforementioncd judgments relir:,1 upon b_\/ both the parties, it is seen that u,hen there is violation of intcrim order. the plaintifl can al*,aJ's approach the Court seeki rg restmin ur_rclcr Order XXXIX RLrle 2(5) of the CpC and under. ! ection 151 .f llr. CPC to grant policc ard. Hou-cr.cr, sr-rch police : iij can be grantccl onlv u,hen there is a disposal ol the petition jed for temporan. tn;ur-rction on merits but not on the basis of ,: injunction orders. Rarely, policc aicl is granted t : parte adin.teint n the basis of ex parte od-intennz injunction in extraordinary cases imminent risk of darnage to the property. Sr- u,hen there is a r-t ch extraordinan circuntstances are not cited in the petition u: therefore, this Court does not sec an_v reason to order passed b-r' the trial Court ir-r I.A. No. 159 o Cer revision .rnd nterfere u,ith the 2024 in LA. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 326 ot 2021. There ar:- no merits ir-r the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be iismissed. ) \ 'AIR 2oz t TELANCA\.\ t 07 7 ctp 14O 2025 13, Accordingly, the Civil Revision pe tition is dismissed confirming the order dated I9.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 159 of 2021 rr't I.A. No. 144 ol 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 by the learned II Additional Scnlor Civi[..ludr1e. Ranga Redd-r, District at L.B.Nagar. There shalI be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions. if anv pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.BHAVANI ASSISTANT MY STRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The l Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distnct at L B' Nagar, Ranga Reddy Drstrict.

2.- The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District,

3. One CC to SRI SETTY RAVI TEJA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI ASHFAQ AHMED Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies PK\PSI- $- - O r,.ri , i\ J( o J 2l I i.1 tt'lI ->. t | .t r r ,( HIGH COURT DATED:28110t2025 D!SMISSED OBDBI? CRP.No.140 ot 2025 cs'b &'