High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/ Defendant Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PASALA JOJAPPA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI K. VENKATARAMANAIAH ( Not present) The Court made the following ORDER: \ t I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.264O OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 1,8.07.2024 in I.A.No.267 of 2022 in O.S.No.232 of 2022 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Ramannapet.

2. Heard Pasala Jojappa, learned counsel for the Petitioner. No representation on behalf of Sri Venkataramanaiah, learne'd counsel for sole respondent, despite entering aPpearance

3. The petitioner herein ts Plain tiff and respondt:nt herein is defendant before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed the O.S.No.232 of 2022, seeking perpetual iniunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property and along with suit an application in I.A.No.247 of 2022 is filed for temPorary injunction. The trial Court vide order dated, 26.09.2022, granted ad-interim injunction and subsequently the same was made absolute on 77.77.2023, after due enquiry and consiclering the material placed on record try the parties Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A.No. 267 of 2022, seeking Po.Lice protection : LN.1,J. CRP No 2640 of202a 2 t alleging violation of interim orders and frequent interference of the respondent in the suit schedule property and the trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2024, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that after enquiry, ad-interim injunction was granted by the trial Court on 26.09.2022 and the respondent appeared and filed counter. Thereafter, trial Court on due consideration of contention and matelial placed on record by both the parties made interim order absolute on 17.1'1.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though orders are subsisting, the respondcnt is interfering with the suit schedule property and when the petitioner tried to resist them, respondent abused the petitioner in a filthy language and threatened that he will file a case against the petitioner under SC/ST Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.267 of 2022 for Police protection

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though various FIRs were registered against the respondent under various provisions of IPC, the trial Court, without considering those aspects erroneously dismissed the application on the sole ground that no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record by the petitioner LN,,I.J. CRP No.2640 oItD4 J establishing the alleged interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that case was registerecl against the respondent for interfer ing with the possession of the petitioner though interim injunction was in force'

7. Perusal of the record would disclose that the' trial Court dismissed the application on the sole ground that the petit oner failed to establish the alleged interference beyond reasonable drrubt and the balance of probabilities for causing such interference was fake and that mere filing of petition and having self serving statements will not suffice an extraordinary power of Police protection under liection 151 of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with revision petition has placed on record seven(07) FIRs registered against tl-,e resPondent under various provisions of IPC i.e., F.l.R.Nos. 744/ 20'.23, 145/2023, 12 / 2024, 60 / 2024, 61 / 2024, 709 / 2024. From the above mentioned FIRs, it is ciearly evident that respondent has in fact interfered with the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record proceedings dated 19.02.2024 of District Forest Officer rs per which respondent has received teak trees in suit schedule property and penalty was also imposed on him YJ .\ LNA,J, CRP No 2640 oJ2024 4

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent also fiied W.P.No.476 of 2024 against the District Collector, Tahsildar and Station House officer, in which petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No.5, and this I'Ionb'le Court passed interim order directing the Tahsildar and Station I Iouse Officer not to interfere wi*r the suit schedule property. However, the above said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2024

9. Material placed on record clearly indicates that respondent is interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, trial Court ought to have considered the subsequent development and registration of FIRs against the respondent and also proceeding dated

79.02.2024 of Diskict Forest Officer. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled for the Police protection

10. In the lilht of above facts and circumstances and in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled for Police protection and the revision deserve to be allowed.

77. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 in I.A.No.267 of 2022 rn O.S.No.232 of 2022. The Station House Officer, Addagudur Police S&tion, Yadadri-Bhongir District, is directed to provide police I \ LN,1..t. (RP No.2610 of)0)4 5 protection for implementation of order dated 77.17.2023 in I.A.No.247 of 2023 n O.S.No.232 of 2022. There shall be no order as tc cosLs Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII orrri.T';.tai5ffiT SiECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge at Ramannapet , yadadri Bhuvanagrri_ District 2 Therstatron House officer, Addagudur police station, yad;rdri =Bhongir 3. One CC to SRt. PASALA JOJAPPA Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to SRt.K. VENKATARAMANATAH 5. Two CD Copies , Advocate iOpUCl k ui./gh s & HIGH COURT DATED:25tO412O25 ORDER CRP.No.2640 ol 2024 ( o 3 TFIE S 14 i 1oluilzw i .) O t.- a \ t reqr:r - At.t-OWIN(i TtIE CI\/ll. REVISION PITTITION @)q" - ge---' -'-ro\d*