The High Court · 2025

...petitioners/petitioners/Defendants Thandra Venkata Rama Rao...S/o. Late Venkata Appa Rao, aged B0 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Matkaram vtlage, b;ilm";plil rfrl"o,r, Khammam Districr ... Respondent/RespondenUplaintiff IA NQ: 1 OF 20f 9 Petition under section 151. cpc praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit filed in support of tne petrtioi, ir. fiigi, Court may be pleased To suspend the operation of the order dated 09.02 201d passeo in rA No.391 0f 2a17 in lA No.4 of 2016 in os No.4 or zo r o tir""ri[ or the court of the rearned speciar Assistant Aoent and sub ;iv;s;o;ar Mobire court at Bhadrachatam penOing" disposal of the main CRp 'rlagistrate -on- l i I I I -"'--------- 6 Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms. R. Madhavi lathat representing Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. M. Tejaswni representing Sri P.V. Ramana The Court made the following: ORDER ./',/6 l I l THE TIONOURABLE DT.JUSTTCE G.RADHA RANI CIVL REVISION PETITION No.9 OF 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- defendants challenging the order dated 09.02.2018 passed in I.A. No.391 of 2017 in I.A. No.4 of 2016 in O.S. No.4 of 2016 by the Special Assistant Agent to Govemment and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.

2. Ileard Ms. R. Madhavi I-atha, leamed counsel representing Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learrred counsel fbr the petitioners on record and Ms. M. Tejaswani, learned counsel, representing Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent on record.

3. Learled counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in passing an order for police aid along with the petition in I.A. No.4 of 2016 granting injunction. No complaint was made by the respondent against the revision petitioners herein that the petitioners herein were attempting to interfere with the alleged possession of the respondent. The impugned order granting police aid and temporary injunction were granted on the same day and at the ) Dr-GRR,J \ same time. The order of temporary injunction passed by the Court below itself was elroneous, as such the consequential order of police aid was bad under law. It was a settled principle of 1aw that police aid could not be granted to a party who was not in 'possession and who was trying to acquire possession by using police aid' The order passed by the trial Court was cryptic in nature' The Court below had not discussed any contentions ofboth the parties and did not give any reasons to sttppott its finding and prayed to allow the revision'

4. Leamed counsel for the respondent admitted that both the orders in I.A No.4 of 2016 and I.A. No'391 of 2017 in I'A' No'4 of 2016 were passed on the same day i.e' on 09'02'2018'

5. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel as police aid can be granted in cases where there is an imminent threat of violation of the injunction order and to ensure compliance with its order when a party faces obstruction or non-cooperation from the other party and in the present case as both the injunction order and police aid order were passed on the same day and no opportunity was given to the revision petitioners-defendants to file their counter or to submit their objections on the said petition and no reasoned order was II '(1 J passed by the trial couft except a cryptic order, which reads as follows: "This Court already granted temporary injunction order on 06.01.2016 in I.A. No.4 of 2016 in O.S. No.4 of 2016 against the respondents/defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintifl over the suit schedule property, therefore, you are hereby directed to provide protection in the following sohedule property till further orders". it is considered fit to set aside the order dated09.O2.2018 passed in I.A. No.391 of 2017 in I.A. No.4 of 2016 in O.S. No.4 of 2016 directing the revision petitioners herein to file their counter within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of this order and directing the trial Court to pass orders within a further period of two (2) weeks after receipt of the counter from the revision petitioners herein. The trial coud is directed to pass a reasoned order on merits after hearing both the counsel representing the matter before it.

6. With the said direction, the CRP is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. /ITRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The special Assistant Agent and sub Divisional Magistrate Mobile-court at Bhadrachalam. 2 one CC to Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. one CC to Sri P.V. Ramana Advocate [OPUC] +. r*o CD Copies 4<-t- L- HIGH COURT DArED:2710212025 ORDER CRP.No.9 of 2019 ) f 'I r-i E s /a14 L^ '|. 22 )t 14AY n25 l ,"'4 !'c Ht-:0 (1 o ALLOWING THE CRP b I I