IMPORTANT POINT
Unless and until interim injunction is made absolute and rights of parties are crystallized, Court cannot normally order Police aid. Courts should be reluctant to grant Police protection on the basis of ex parte injunction orders, which would only pave the way for further litigation between parties.

ORDER

The order dated 12.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2020 in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 in O.S.No.318 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Medak, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the I.A.No.1671 of 2019 granting police aid to the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that first respondent herein filed O.S.No.318 of 2019 stating that the second respondent herein in the capacity of proprietor of the petitioner herein offered to sell plaint A schedule property admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas (Plaint A schedule property) for a total sum of Rs.26,86,50,000/- and accordingly the first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the second respondent dated 14.4.2019 by paying Rs.4,25,00,000/- to the second respondent towards advance sale consideration agreeing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,61,50,000/- within three months. The first respondent was ready with the balance sale consideration by 15.6.2019 to get the property registered in his name, though he has three months time, and he informed the same to the second respondent and requested to conduct a government survey and physical measurement of the property and for fixation of boundaries, which the second respondent failed to do. Instead, the second respondent requested the first respondent to purchase part of land admeasuring Ac.3-00 out of total land admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas (Plaint B Schedule property) by paying sale consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/- as he was in urgent need of money and undertook to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries of plaint A schedule property later. The first respondent agreed for the same and obtained Agreement of sale cum AGPA with possession bearing D.No.30288/2019 dated 21.6.2019 in his favour towards the Western side of the plaint A schedule property. The first respondent paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/- to the second respondent.

The first respondent further stated that in spite of several requests made by him, the second respondent did not take steps to conduct survey of the plaint A schedule property and to fix boundaries. On 15.12.2019 the first respondent demanded the second respondent to execute and register sale deed in his favour for the remaining extent of Ac.1-39 guntas (Plaint C schedule property) and expressed his readiness with the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,66,50,000/- to which the second respondent stated that he has already sold the plaint C schedule property in favour of third parties. Whereupon the first respondent made enquiries and obtained encumbrance certificate from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy and came to know that the second respondent executed an agreement of sale cum GPA dated 08.11.2019 and sale deed dated 16.11.2019 in respect of the plaint C schedule property in favour of petitioner herein, who in turn created false and bogus sale deed bearing Doc.No.48684/2019 dated 16.11.2019 in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. The second respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the initial agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019 and by suppressing the same the second respondent created bogus sale deed.

The allegation of the first respondent was that suppressing the original agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are now trying to alienate the plaint C schedule property in favour of third parties basing on the bogus sale deed dated 16.11.2019 to cause loss to the first respondent and that they are also trying to change the nature of the plaint C schedule property. Therefore, the first respondent filed I.A.No.1671 of 2019, in which the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the first respondent. While so on 29.7.2020 and 31.7.2020 the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and their henchmen came to the plaint C schedu