ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10881 OF 2021
Decided On : 13-08-2021
POLICE AID - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39, RULE 2(A), SECTION 95(E), SECTION 151 OF CPC - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought police aid to implement a temporary injunction order granted in his favor in a civil suit. The 4th respondent, claiming to be a cultivating tenant, interfered with the petitioner's possession of the land, violating the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to police aid for effective implementation of the temporary injunction order. The court rejected the 4th respondent's contentions that the petitioner had alternative remedies under Order 39, Rule 2(A), Section 95(e), and Section 151 of the CPC, that the pendency of the 4th respondent's appeal against the injunction order barred the grant of police aid, and that the petitioner's parallel proceedings before the trial court and the High Court were not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to police aid to implement the temporary injunction order. 2. Whether the 4th respondent's appeal against the injunction order barred the grant of police aid. 3. Whether the petitioner's parallel proceedings before the trial court and the High Court were maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person in whose favor a decree for permanent injunction or an order of temporary injunction was passed by a competent civil Court has two remedies: (a) approach the trial Court which passed the said decree or order and seek police aid for effective implementation of the said decree or order, or (b) approach the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police aid for effective implementation of the said decree or temporary injunction order. 2. Mere pendency of an appeal against an injunction order does not bar the grant of police aid to implement the order. 3. Withdrawal of an application for police aid before the trial Court removes any bar or impediment to entertaining a writ petition for police aid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and granted police aid in favor of the petitioner, subject to the result of the 4th respondent's appeal against the injunction order.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking police aid for effective implementation of the temporary injunction order dated 10.02.2021 that was granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.224 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram.
2. As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, he has purchased Ac.10-00 cents of land covered by R.S.No.195/2B situated at Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, under a registered sale deed, dated 17-07-2020 from one Smt. Kuchimanchi Uma Maheswara Rao for valid consideration and he became absolute owner of the said property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that, when the 4th respondent interfered with his possession, claiming that he is the cultivating tenant under the vendor of the petitioner, that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram, for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent and his henchmen from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land and that he has also filed an Interlocutory Application No.224 of 2020 in the said suit, seeking temporary injunction and that the said civil Court has granted temporary injunction on merits after hearing both the parties on 10.02.2021. It is stated that, C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 was preferred by the 4th respondent against the said order of temporary injunction before the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, but no order suspending the said order of temporary injunction, was granted.
3. The petitioner states that despite passing of temporary injunction against the petitioner, that the 4th respondent has been interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land in utter violation of the temporary injunction. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition seeking police aid for effective implementation of the said order.
4. The 4th respondent has filed counter stating that his family has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.25.85 cents covered by S.No.195 of Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, from the time of their ancestors as cultivating tenants under estate of Pithapuram Rajah and village Gokavaram is an inam estate.
5. It is stated that the litigation in respect of the said land commenced in the year 1956 before various statutory authorities regarding entitlement of pattas and the present writ petition is a part of a 3rd round litigation in the said process. It is pleaded that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are also initiated at the instance of the family of one Kuchimanchi Seethayamma and the 4th respondent and his brothers filed Criminal Petition No.10866 of 2017 before this Court for quash and this Court quashed the said order on 28-11-2017.
6. It is further pleaded that while so, the present registered sale deed which is a void one, was pressed into service and the writ petitioner has filed the above suit and initially obtained exparte interim injunction order and thereafter temporary injunction order was passed making the ad-interim injunction order absolute on 10.02.2021. It is stated that this respondent has preferred C.M.A. against the said order on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the said C.M.A. is now pending. It is further pleaded that the petitioner can as well pursue his remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”), if there is any violation of the Court’s order and thereby prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in I.A.No.224 of 2020 which was filed seeking temporary injunction in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Jud
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.