SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1776

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : LOKIREV PREETHAM REDDY

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 proof.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Police protection against an injunction order - Petition filed by the plaintiff for police protection to implement an injunction order was dismissed - The court emphasized that police aid cannot be routinely granted and must be proven with a high standard of evidence, particularly regarding alleged violations of injunctions. (Paras 4, 6, 29, 34)

(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The Civil Courts have discretion to grant police aid but must exercise it cautiously and not on mere assertions. The requirement of proof for police protection diminishes the risk of routine appeals for police intervention. (Paras 28, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks police protection to harvest crops from her agricultural land, claiming obstruction by the respondent despite a valid injunction order. The application for police protection was dismissed, asserting no evidence of threat or violation of the injunction. The respondent claims rightful possession and challenges the plaintiff's claims.

Findings of Court:
The court found that without substantial evidence, the inability to grant police protection was justified. The dismissal of the petitioner’s application was upheld as the need for police presence must be clearly established and not based on unverified claims.

Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the lower court erred in denying police protection for enforcing the injunction order and the standard of evidence required for such claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that police protection is contingent on credible evidence of obstruction or threat to enforce court orders and should not be granted lightly, reiterating that rights cannot be declared through simply asserting them.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top