ORDER:

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against an Order dated 08.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.611 of 2019 in I.A.No.11 of 2016 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

2. Heard Mr.M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Y.Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein filed the above referred suit seeking a decree for declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men etc. from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.11 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition/suit schedule property. By an Order dated 20.09.2019, the learned Trial Court after hearing both sides granted an Order of injunction. Alleging that despite the said Orders dated 20.09.2019, the respondents/defendants are interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by picking up quarrels everyday at the field and trying to encroach into the suit land and dispossess the petitioner, an application in I.A.No.611 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking police aid for implementation of the Orders of injunction dated 20.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2016. The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants by filing a counter. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter, while opining that the petitioner/plaintiff did not produce any material to substantiate his case that the respondents/defendants are trying to dispossess him and that the grant of police aid is an extreme step and unless the Court is fully satisfied about the existence of grave emergency, was not inclined to grant the relief sought for and dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel while reiterating the several grounds urged in the Revision Petition inter alia submits that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and committed material irregularities and therefore the Order under challenge is liable to be interfered with. He submits that an Order of injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff after hearing both sides and in such circumstances, when there is a serious threat with regard to interference of the respondents/defendants with the petitioner/plaintiff’s possession, the learned Trial Court ought to have taken into considering the specific averments made on oath in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking police aid, instead of dismissing the same on the ground that no material is placed in support of the petitioner/plaintiff’s allegations. The learned counsel strenuously contends that the sanctity of the Orders passed by the Courts have to be maintained and the same cannot be allowed to be flouted by denying the police-aid on mere technicalities. While contending that the decision in Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao and Others v. Bommaji

1 Danam and Others on which the learned Trial Court has placed reliance for dismissing the application seeking police-aid is distinguishable, the learned counsel would urge that the learned Trial Court ought to have followed the principle laid down in the decision of

2 Sama Jana Reddy v. Muppa Narasimha Reddy

5. The learned counsel would further urge that the Order of the learned Trial Court is also not sustainable as it failed to take into consideration the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff along with the relevant Case Law for arriving at just conclusions. He also places reliance on the decisions reported in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limi