Back
2021 Supreme(Telangana) 21
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
M/s. Senthan Properties – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. S.V.S. Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1173 of 2020
Decided On : 21-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. J.C. Francis.
For the Respondent: Ms. G. Vivekanand.
Point of Law: Courts should be reluctant to grant police protection on basis of ex-parte injunction orders, which would only pave way for further litigation between parties, since parties, on basis of police protection order and with connivance of police, complete constructions or commit waste or do other acts which they would not be able to do even after final orders are passed by the Civil Court - Court has come across many such instances earlier.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 2-A - Order 39 - Schedule property - Agreement of sale - Balance sale consideration - First respondent herein filed O.S. No. stating that second respondent herein in capacity of proprietor of petitioner herein offered to sell plaint A schedule property admeasuring Ac. 4-39 guntas (Plaint A schedule property) for a total sum and accordingly first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with second respondent dated by paying to second respondent towards advance sale consideration agreeing to pay balance sale consideration within three month - Instead, second respondent requested 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 as he was in urgent need of money and undertook to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of plaint A schedule property later - First respondent agreed for same and obtained Agreement of sale cum AGPA with possession bearing dated in his favour towards the Western side of plaint A schedule property - First respondent paid entire sale consideration to second respondent
Finding of the Court:
Learned counsel for first respondent submitted that since respondents 3 to 6 are interfering with possession and enjoyment of first respondent over suit schedule property in violation of ex-parte interim order, first respondent was constrained to file which trial Court allowed and ordered police aid and that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is neither material irregularity nor illegality nor any infirmity in impugned order, as such, present revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India - First respondent can take recourse to file a petition under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC, which lays down a punitive measure for purpose of compelling a party to comply with order of injunction - But Court cannot straight away order police aid petition without disposing of interim injunction petition because granting police aid to implement an ex-parte injunction may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to opposite party, without hearing whom an injunction was granted against him - In that view of matter, Court of view that Court below was in error in passing orders on petition for police aid, without disposing of I.A. No. on merits.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. 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. 430 of 2020 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
