Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
K. Gopallu and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
A.P.S.C.B. Employees Union —Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.4791, 4860 and 4895 of 2016
Decided on 20.12.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Pramod, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Jagdish Chandra Prasad, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of the decree holder and violation of any decree has to be determined judicially by the Court. Without deciding the same, implementation of decree for perpetual injunction cannot be left to be decided by the police.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rule 32—Injunction suit settled by compromise in Lok Adalat and award was passed—Execution petition alleging that judgment debtors were trying to encroach E.P. schedule property—Application by decree holder for police did—Order passed by Execution Court directing police to provide police aid in implementing decree—Revision—Violation of decree has to be determined by Court—Without deciding same, implementation of decree cannot be lift to be decided by police—Question whether JD in a decree for perpetual injunction has willfully invaded or threatened to invade the possession of decree holder was a matter to be judicially determined by court—Granting protection pending E.P. may not be correct.
Held: From the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court referred to above, it would be clear that the possession of the decree holder and violation of any decree has to be determined judicially by the Court. Without deciding the same, implementation of decree for perpetual injunction cannot be left to be decided by the police. If there is any complaint with regard to trespass or destruction to the property, the police may take action according to law. Since the order which is now sought to be passed is in the nature of injunction positively protecting the petitioner is an executable order, it has to be dealt with in accordance with Order 21, Rule 32 of C.P.C. and granting protection pending E.P. may not be correct. Hence, the orders passed in E.A. are liable to be set aside. At this stage it is brought to the notice of the Court that the possession of the property has already been delivered to the decree holder on 21.09.2016. It is also to be noted that third parties, who are claiming right over the property have also filed applications impleading themselves in the execution petition which is still pending consideration before the trial Court. In view of the above, the decree holder to whom the property is said to have been delivered shall not alienate the property or alter the nature of the property till disposal of the E.P. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the E.P. and the third party claims etc. together as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three to six months, in accordance with law. (Para 9)
Result: Petition disposed of accordingly.
C. Praveen Kumar, J.—Aggrieved by the orders passed in E.A. No. 64 of 2015 in O.E.P. No. 44 of 2015 in O.S. No. 128 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, wherein a direction was given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, to provide police aid in implementing the decree passed in O.S. No. 128 of 1996, all the three Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
2. Since the issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 777 of the Constitution of India are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in E.P. No. 44 of 2015.
4. The decree holder filed 0.5. No. 128 of 1996 seeking permanent injunction. Pursuant to a compromise arrived at between the parties to the suit, the said suit was compromised and a Lok Adalath award came to be passed on 27.06.1998, which is as under:—
“1. The defendants 3 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 139 of 1993 for partition of 3/2th share in suit survey No.509/4 of B. Kopalle Revenue Village, measuring 5.26 cents against the plaintiff herein and also defendants 1 and 2 and whereas both parties including defendants 1 to 5 and plaintiff have compromised the matter, where under the Plaintiff Union paid Rs.1,32,000/- to the defendants in O.S. No. 139 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and got the compromise recorded and this became entitled the plaintiff schedule property excluding one kunta located on the South West Corner of suit survey number.
2. The defendants have no objection for passing a decree as prayed for without costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property except one kunta of land located on the South-West corner of the suit schedule property.
3. In case the defendants commit any breach of the terms and conditions of the compromise petition, the plaintiff will be at liberty to take police aid and enforce this decree through process of law.”
5. About 17 years i.e. on 18.07.2014 the decree holder filed E.P. No. 44 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli alleging that the judgment debtors are trying to encroach the E.P. schedule property. The decree holder also lodged a written report against the judgment debtors before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalle II Town Police Station, who insisted the decree holder to obtain police aid through the Court for according protection as per the Lok Adalat Award. It is the case of the decree holder that the judgment debtors have violated the terms and conditions of the Lok Adalath award.
6. A counter came to be filed opposing the same. The present E.P. is still pending consideration. While things stood thus, the decree holder filed E.A. No. 64 of 2015 seeking a direction to the police to accord police aid to implement the Lok Adalath award in O.S. No. 128 of 1996. It is to be noted that on 23.08.2016 the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, issued an official memo directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Madanapalle to give police protection for implementing the Lok Adalath award passed in O.S. No. 128 of 1996. On 16.09.2016 the Court Amin was directed to take assistance of a qualified -surveyor for implementing the decree passed in O.S. No. 128 of 1996. Challenging the orders passed in E.A. No. 64 of 2015, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
7. It is to be noted that O.S. No. 128 of 1996 came to be decided in the year 1998 pursuant to a compromise arrived at between the parties. Nearly 17 years later the decree holder made an application seeking action against the judgment debtors for violating the orders passed by Lok Adalath in the year 1998. The said E.P. is still pending consideration. The Court has not given any finding as to whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the award passed by th
