IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
Vishwantha Sharada Bai – Appellant
Versus
Ganta Bhaskar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1513 of 2021
Decided On : 07-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petition filed against dismissal for police protection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent countered plaintiff's claims and sought to dismiss. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. civil courts have discretion to grant police aid cautiously. (Para 4 , 26 , 33) |
| 4. previous court rulings instruct on conditions for police protection. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. petition for police protection dismissed due to lack of evidence for threat. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 36) |
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order, dated 16.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.351 of 2019 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Andole, Jogipet, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to grant police protection to implement the order and decree, dated 25.09.2019, in C.M.A.No.02 of 2019 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property which is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.09-34 guntas in survey No.189/1/AA(1) and land to an extent of Ac.03-05 guntas in Survey No.189/5/3 (5), situated at Annaram Village of Papannapet Mandal, Medak District along with I.A.No.52 of 2018 seeking interim injunction till disposal of the suit, was dismissed:
(a) Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal in C.M.A No.02 of 2019, which was allowed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25.09.2009. As no appeal or revision was preferred against the said order, it attained finality. It is stated that on 25.11.2019 and 30.11.2019 when the petitioner along with her husband went to the agricultural land for harvesting the crop, meanwhile, respondent- defendant No.2 came to the suit schedule land and obstructed them from doing the same. Therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff herein has filed an application before the trial Court seeking police protection. It is further stated that despite there being an injunction order, dated 25.09.2009 which is a contested order granted by learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, respondent-police are not taking any steps to grant police protection to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medak Rural, to grant police protection to the petitioner.
3.......
(a) Respondent-Defendant No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including title and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that one Kishan Rao, who is original pattadar was declared as a surplus holder and that under the Land Ceiling Act 1973, he surrendered some of the lands to the Government. Subsequently, after Government assigned Ac.02-00 guntas of suit land to respondent No.1 in the year 1983 in Survey No.189/12, respondent No.1 died on 18.05.2018 leaving behind his mother and two sisters as legal heirs, who succeeded to the said land and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
(b) It is further stated that the petitioner’s mother filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2001 including their land and the said suit was dismissed. Further, it is contended that respondent No.2 has not received any notice in aforesaid C.M.A and it is an ex parte order and that respondent No.2 is intending to file Civil Revision Petition against the said order. Immediately, after disposal of the C.M.A, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking police protection under the guise of temporary injunction order and trying to encroach upon his property. It
J. Jagannath Reddy v. Laxmi Devi
Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy
P. Shankar Rao v. Smt. B.Susheela
Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemanth Vimalnath Narichania and others
Police aid in civil matters requires substantial evidence of threat or violation, not mere claims. Courts exercise this power with caution and discretion, emphasizing the need for a high standard of ....
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.