1 Chinthapally Jaipal Reddy v. '1 . Nidigonda Ramulu

Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners to file the documents i.e. 1) Copy of complaint dated 0110712024 with P S Choutuppal and 2) Copy of ln.junction orders in l.A.No.5B5 of 2022 in the above C R P.No 2402 OF 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S VIJAYA PRASHANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: G RAVI CHANDRAN The Court made the following: ORDER ]'H E ITO N()TI RAB LTi SM't. .IUSTICE, IIEN UKA YARA CIvIL REVISION PETITION No.2402 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Vijaya Prashanth, leamed counsel lor the revision petitioners and Sri C. Ravi Chandran, leamed counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a revision prelerred by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.236 of'202i in O.S.No.235 of 2022, wherein the petition filed under Section l5l oICPC seeking the relief of grant of police aid with a direction to the Station I Iouse Officer, Choutuppal, to provide police protection in implernentation ol order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022, dated

09.:09.2022. has becn dismissed.

3. The revision petitioners have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the rcspondents hercin along with an application seeking ad interim injunction to rcstrict the interfcrence with the suit schedule property. 1'he trial Courl granted ex perte 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 w'ritten statement in the main suit. While so, on 10.07.2023 the respondents along with others allegedly tried to enter into th.' land ol tlrc rer ision petitioners and dispossess them. l'he said RY,J cRP 1402 2024 attempts were resisted by the revision petitioners and the respondents threatened to come again and occupy the property firrcibly. 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 civiI in nature. Therefbre, the revision petitioners flled I.A.No.136 of 2023 before the trial Court secking police protection

4. The respondents opposed thc said petition betble the trial Court by filing counter alleging that the revision petitioners have tried to take undue advantage of the c-r parte injunction grantcd by the trial Court. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the suit is lltcd with the ulterior rnotive of illegally grabbing the properly belonging to the respondents. The lands of the revision petitioners are elseu'here arrd they havc rrothing to do with the alleged suit schedule property. l he casc of the respondents is that the revision petitioners are not in actual possession, but u,ant to take illegal possession by fi ling a suit

5. The trial Court considered the question as to rvhether the revision petitioners are entitled to grant ol police protection as prayed fbr and dismissed the said application on the ground that when the alleged interference took place there was onlv ad interirn rniunction i.e., on

10.07.2023. I:urther, tenlporary injunction rvas granrt'd on merrts b1' 2 R Y..I cRP-1402 .2024 disposing the I.A.No.-s85 ol2()21 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 datc ol interlcrcnce i.e., on 10.07.2023 and there is no allegation ol- interference alter granting of'tcnrporary injunction in I.A.No.585 ol 2022 on 03.06.2024, thc petition filed seeking police protection has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. In grounds ol revision, thc revision petitioners pleaded that on

10.07.2023, the respondents and their associates have entered into the suit schedule property, rvhich is in possession ol the revision petitioners and therefbre, there is necd for grant of police protection and therefore, they approached the police. While so, the trial Court has erroneously concluded that there was no violation ol injunction order and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled tbr police protection. According to the revision petitioners, the lrnding is sell'contradictory as the same Court has madc 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 ol interfercnce in the fbrm ol any complaint given to the police or any other rneans 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..I (:R? 2.402 2024 revision pctitioners claim that police prolection ought to have been granted Ilence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and police protection be granted.

7. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No. I of 201i befbre this Court to receive copy ol'complaint dated 0l .07.20?.4 with Polrce Station Choutuppal and copy of the injunction order passed in 1.A.No.585 of 2022 in O.S.No.235 ol 2022, which are to bc considerc-tl fbr granting police protectron.

8. During arguments, the leamed counsel lor the revision petitioners argued that the suit is filed secking pcrpetual rn junction to restrain respondents fi'om entering into suit schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the revisior-r pctitioners along with interlocutory application in I.A.No.585 ol' 20ll seeking temporary injunction and in the said application, ad interim in.iLrnction was granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 by dispensing with notic!' to respondents. On

10.07.2023, there was interference by the respondents and there{bre, the interlocutory application under revision i.e., I.A.No.li(r of 2023 w'as frled secking polic,,' protection. I.A.No.5S5 of 2022 and I.A.No.236 ol'2023 in O.S.No,235 of 2022 were heard and disposed ol' sirnultaneously. I.A.No.585 <tf )022 was allorved by making the rrd intcrim iniunction 1 I I t I _------_........ RY.J cP.t, 2402 2024 absolute and LA.No.f36 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 propefty 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 vde 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, leamed counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Bijiga Papa Rao v. Jonnalgadda Srinivas Raor, wherein it is held that poticc aid can be granted in deserving and appropriate cases under Section l5 I ot'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 excuscs and explanations. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in (iampala 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, ) 'zors 1z1aro rzr \ ' zbra 1z1nLo usr 5 / I RY..I c'RP 1402 2024 police protection may be granted to uphold the rule ol- lau, and unless such action is taken rule of law will not prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively irnplemented. Reference is made to the .iLrdgment o[' Madras High Court in N. Karpagam v. Deivanaiammal @ Deivathatr, rvherein 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 ol 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 *as tlled befbre the temporary injunction was made absolute in I.A.No.58i o12022 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 witl'rout considering the merits of case of both the parties and therelore, thcre was no ground to grant police aid lbr alleged interference on 10.07.2013. Howcver, 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. 1 l. Referring to I.A.No.l of 2025 filed in the present revision. learned counsll for the respondents referred to the police complaint gii,cn ) ' atn 2ooi uno zt9 6 RY-J cRP 2402 2024 0l .07.2024 allcging interference by the respondents in the suit schedule property. This complaint was given after passing ol the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 and order in t.A.No.585 of 2022. l-earned counsel lbr 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 nraintainable.

12. Undisputed facts are that the petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit ftrr perpetual injunction is filed alteging interference by the respondents and I.A.No.585 ol 2022 was liled seeking temporary injunction and ad interim injunction was granted on

09.09.2022 in the said [.A.. Thereatier, alnrosl alter ten months there was an interference by the respondents on 10.07.2013 and therefbre, I.A.No.236 of 2023 i.e., I.A. under revision was flled, but the sarne was dismissed White the revision petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to grant of police protection on the basis ol the iudgments in Bijiga Papa Rao, (iampala Anthaiah and N. Karpagam lall citcd supra). the version olthe learned counsel fbr the respondents is that no police protection can bc granted on the basis ofad interim injunction, which is not passed on merits. 1 RY..r cRP l{01 2024

13. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the judgrnent of this Court in Shanagonda Sampath v. Shanagonda Akhilar, - rvherein it is he ld as under: "47. 'l-hc sunr and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that Civil (lourts har c po\\'er to grant police aid when thcre is allcgation o{' violation ol'injunction granted by trial Court. But the civil Courls have to exercisc the said power in rarest of rare cases and rvith ercat circumspct:tion and caution."

14. -lhe l{igh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rai Naramma v. State of Antl h ra Pradeshs, held as under: "7. 11 is now wcll settled law that only when there is a decrcc lbr pcnnanent injunction and only when there is an ordcr ol'temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is rnadt- absolute afier hearing both the parties, then only the Courts usually cither the civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant policc aid firr cll'cctive imple mentation ol thc said perrnanent injunction decrec or a tempora+' injunction ,.rrder rvhich is passed on merits. But rvhen thc cx partc ad- interim in-itrnotion is granted without hearing the respondcnts and u'hcn thc samc is not made absolute granting a temporary iniunction order. till the disposal ol thc suit, on merits. the Courts will not usualll' orde r lirr grant ol- police aid for implementation of thc ex pa(c ad-inlcrirn iniunction order. Since it is not an order on merits aficr hcaring both the narties. the Courts rvould be very slow in granting policc aid. till the possession and rights of the parties are determined atier cncluin based on evidencc."

15. As per the aforesaid judgments, police protectioo r-arflot be granted on the basis ol ad interim injunction unless extraordinary circumstances prevail. [n nonnal course police aid can be granted onlr after the ortler of C.R P No.2516 of 2024. dared 09.06.2025 (2021) I ALr 426 8 RY..I cRP 2+02._2024 temporary injunction is passed on merits in an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 of CPC.

16. lrrespective of whether police aid can be granted or not on the basis of the ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 tn I.A.No.585 of 2022, the fact remains that no iota ol evidence has been produced to demonstrate that there was interference by the respondents I I while adjudicating the impugned application under revision. Only after the impugned order was passed dismissing I.A.No.236 ot'2023 <tn 03.06.2024 and just before filing the present revision petition a policc complaint dated 01 .07.2024 is todged 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 0l .07.2024 are true, the same cannot be basis for passing of order ol police protection in I.A.No.236 of 2023 as there is no concrete proof to bclievc interfcrence by the respondents prior ro 01.07 .2024. The complaint givcn to police on

01.07 .2024 may give rise to a fresh cause of action sceking police protection in view of injunction order granted in 1.A.No.585 ol 2021 dated

03.06.2024. As such, there are no grounds to interferc in the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.l35 ol'2022. The Civil Rc-r'ision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 .- f'tt l, t+()t tol+

17. In the rt:sult, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the ordcr daterl 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022 on the fl le ol the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, ilany. pending shall stand closed. so/- . JAWAHAR REDDY ti TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal. 2. One CC to SRI S VIJAYA PRASHANTH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI c RAV| CHANDRAN Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies (fr GR/(;R 1 \ i0 HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER CRP.No.24A2 ot 2024 1 H E sr,.t 14: '..o t 6 0 4 t{0ll x6 , z o j :l t sPAT cue0. I I !, DISM!SSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION L \h t\ v\ f, (

Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners to file the documents i.e. 1) Copy of complaint dated 0110712024 with P S Choutuppal and 2) Copy of ln.junction orders in l.A.No.5B5 of 2022 in the above C R P.No 2402 OF 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S VIJAYA PRASHANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: G RAVI CHANDRAN The Court made the following: ORDER ]'H E ITO N()TI RAB LTi SM't. .IUSTICE, IIEN UKA YARA CIvIL REVISION PETITION No.2402 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Vijaya Prashanth, leamed counsel lor the revision petitioners and Sri C. Ravi Chandran, leamed counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a revision prelerred by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.236 of'202i in O.S.No.235 of 2022, wherein the petition filed under Section l5l oICPC seeking the relief of grant of police aid with a direction to the Station I Iouse Officer, Choutuppal, to provide police protection in implernentation ol order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022, dated

09.:09.2022. has becn dismissed.

3. The revision petitioners have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the rcspondents hercin along with an application seeking ad interim injunction to rcstrict the interfcrence with the suit schedule property. 1'he trial Courl granted ex perte 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 w'ritten statement in the main suit. While so, on 10.07.2023 the respondents along with others allegedly tried to enter into th.' land ol tlrc rer ision petitioners and dispossess them. l'he said RY,J cRP 1402 2024 attempts were resisted by the revision petitioners and the respondents threatened to come again and occupy the property firrcibly. 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 civiI in nature. Therefbre, the revision petitioners flled I.A.No.136 of 2023 before the trial Court secking police protection

4. The respondents opposed thc said petition betble the trial Court by filing counter alleging that the revision petitioners have tried to take undue advantage of the c-r parte injunction grantcd by the trial Court. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the suit is lltcd with the ulterior rnotive of illegally grabbing the properly belonging to the respondents. The lands of the revision petitioners are elseu'here arrd they havc rrothing to do with the alleged suit schedule property. l he casc of the respondents is that the revision petitioners are not in actual possession, but u,ant to take illegal possession by fi ling a suit

5. The trial Court considered the question as to rvhether the revision petitioners are entitled to grant ol police protection as prayed fbr and dismissed the said application on the ground that when the alleged interference took place there was onlv ad interirn rniunction i.e., on

10.07.2023. I:urther, tenlporary injunction rvas granrt'd on merrts b1' 2 R Y..I cRP-1402 .2024 disposing the I.A.No.-s85 ol2()21 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 datc ol interlcrcnce i.e., on 10.07.2023 and there is no allegation ol- interference alter granting of'tcnrporary injunction in I.A.No.585 ol 2022 on 03.06.2024, thc petition filed seeking police protection has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. In grounds ol revision, thc revision petitioners pleaded that on

10.07.2023, the respondents and their associates have entered into the suit schedule property, rvhich is in possession ol the revision petitioners and therefbre, there is necd for grant of police protection and therefore, they approached the police. While so, the trial Court has erroneously concluded that there was no violation ol injunction order and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled tbr police protection. According to the revision petitioners, the lrnding is sell'contradictory as the same Court has madc 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 ol interfercnce in the fbrm ol any complaint given to the police or any other rneans 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..I (:R? 2.402 2024 revision pctitioners claim that police prolection ought to have been granted Ilence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and police protection be granted.

7. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No. I of 201i befbre this Court to receive copy ol'complaint dated 0l .07.20?.4 with Polrce Station Choutuppal and copy of the injunction order passed in 1.A.No.585 of 2022 in O.S.No.235 ol 2022, which are to bc considerc-tl fbr granting police protectron.

8. During arguments, the leamed counsel lor the revision petitioners argued that the suit is filed secking pcrpetual rn junction to restrain respondents fi'om entering into suit schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the revisior-r pctitioners along with interlocutory application in I.A.No.585 ol' 20ll seeking temporary injunction and in the said application, ad interim in.iLrnction was granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 by dispensing with notic!' to respondents. On

10.07.2023, there was interference by the respondents and there{bre, the interlocutory application under revision i.e., I.A.No.li(r of 2023 w'as frled secking polic,,' protection. I.A.No.5S5 of 2022 and I.A.No.236 ol'2023 in O.S.No,235 of 2022 were heard and disposed ol' sirnultaneously. I.A.No.585 <tf )022 was allorved by making the rrd intcrim iniunction 1 I I t I _------_........ RY.J cP.t, 2402 2024 absolute and LA.No.f36 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 propefty 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 vde 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, leamed counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Bijiga Papa Rao v. Jonnalgadda Srinivas Raor, wherein it is held that poticc aid can be granted in deserving and appropriate cases under Section l5 I ot'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 excuscs and explanations. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in (iampala 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, ) 'zors 1z1aro rzr \ ' zbra 1z1nLo usr 5 / I RY..I c'RP 1402 2024 police protection may be granted to uphold the rule ol- lau, and unless such action is taken rule of law will not prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively irnplemented. Reference is made to the .iLrdgment o[' Madras High Court in N. Karpagam v. Deivanaiammal @ Deivathatr, rvherein 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 ol 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 *as tlled befbre the temporary injunction was made absolute in I.A.No.58i o12022 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 witl'rout considering the merits of case of both the parties and therelore, thcre was no ground to grant police aid lbr alleged interference on 10.07.2013. Howcver, 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. 1 l. Referring to I.A.No.l of 2025 filed in the present revision. learned counsll for the respondents referred to the police complaint gii,cn ) ' atn 2ooi uno zt9 6 RY-J cRP 2402 2024 0l .07.2024 allcging interference by the respondents in the suit schedule property. This complaint was given after passing ol the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 and order in t.A.No.585 of 2022. l-earned counsel lbr 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 nraintainable.

12. Undisputed facts are that the petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit ftrr perpetual injunction is filed alteging interference by the respondents and I.A.No.585 ol 2022 was liled seeking temporary injunction and ad interim injunction was granted on

09.09.2022 in the said [.A.. Thereatier, alnrosl alter ten months there was an interference by the respondents on 10.07.2013 and therefbre, I.A.No.236 of 2023 i.e., I.A. under revision was flled, but the sarne was dismissed White the revision petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to grant of police protection on the basis ol the iudgments in Bijiga Papa Rao, (iampala Anthaiah and N. Karpagam lall citcd supra). the version olthe learned counsel fbr the respondents is that no police protection can bc granted on the basis ofad interim injunction, which is not passed on merits. 1 RY..r cRP l{01 2024

13. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the judgrnent of this Court in Shanagonda Sampath v. Shanagonda Akhilar, - rvherein it is he ld as under: "47. 'l-hc sunr and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that Civil (lourts har c po\\'er to grant police aid when thcre is allcgation o{' violation ol'injunction granted by trial Court. But the civil Courls have to exercisc the said power in rarest of rare cases and rvith ercat circumspct:tion and caution."

14. -lhe l{igh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rai Naramma v. State of Antl h ra Pradeshs, held as under: "7. 11 is now wcll settled law that only when there is a decrcc lbr pcnnanent injunction and only when there is an ordcr ol'temporary injunction in an interlocutory application which is rnadt- absolute afier hearing both the parties, then only the Courts usually cither the civil Court or the Writ Court, would grant policc aid firr cll'cctive imple mentation ol thc said perrnanent injunction decrec or a tempora+' injunction ,.rrder rvhich is passed on merits. But rvhen thc cx partc ad- interim in-itrnotion is granted without hearing the respondcnts and u'hcn thc samc is not made absolute granting a temporary iniunction order. till the disposal ol thc suit, on merits. the Courts will not usualll' orde r lirr grant ol- police aid for implementation of thc ex pa(c ad-inlcrirn iniunction order. Since it is not an order on merits aficr hcaring both the narties. the Courts rvould be very slow in granting policc aid. till the possession and rights of the parties are determined atier cncluin based on evidencc."

15. As per the aforesaid judgments, police protectioo r-arflot be granted on the basis ol ad interim injunction unless extraordinary circumstances prevail. [n nonnal course police aid can be granted onlr after the ortler of C.R P No.2516 of 2024. dared 09.06.2025 (2021) I ALr 426 8 RY..I cRP 2+02._2024 temporary injunction is passed on merits in an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 of CPC.

16. lrrespective of whether police aid can be granted or not on the basis of the ad interim injunction granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 tn I.A.No.585 of 2022, the fact remains that no iota ol evidence has been produced to demonstrate that there was interference by the respondents I I while adjudicating the impugned application under revision. Only after the impugned order was passed dismissing I.A.No.236 ot'2023 <tn 03.06.2024 and just before filing the present revision petition a policc complaint dated 01 .07.2024 is todged 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 0l .07.2024 are true, the same cannot be basis for passing of order ol police protection in I.A.No.236 of 2023 as there is no concrete proof to bclievc interfcrence by the respondents prior ro 01.07 .2024. The complaint givcn to police on

01.07 .2024 may give rise to a fresh cause of action sceking police protection in view of injunction order granted in 1.A.No.585 ol 2021 dated

03.06.2024. As such, there are no grounds to interferc in the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.l35 ol'2022. The Civil Rc-r'ision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 .- f'tt l, t+()t tol+

17. In the rt:sult, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the ordcr daterl 03.06.2024 in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022 on the fl le ol the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, ilany. pending shall stand closed. so/- . JAWAHAR REDDY ti TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal. 2. One CC to SRI S VIJAYA PRASHANTH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI c RAV| CHANDRAN Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies (fr GR/(;R 1 \ i0 HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER CRP.No.24A2 ot 2024 1 H E sr,.t 14: '..o t 6 0 4 t{0ll x6 , z o j :l t sPAT cue0. I I !, DISM!SSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION L \h t\ v\ f, (