The court reaffirmed that specific statutory remedies for disobedience must be pursued instead of invoking inherent powers without evidence of imminent threats.

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2022 in I.A. No. 114 of 2021 in I.A. No. 1862 of 2019 in O.S. No. 853 of 2022 (old O.S. No. 2879 of 2019) passed by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. The revision petitioner herein filed the subject suit for Permanent Injunction as the plaintiff vide O.S. No. 853 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’).

3. The respondents herein are the defendants in the above said Suit.

4. The petitioner herein had filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 1862 of 2019 in the subject suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents herein or their agents, servants, workers or whosoever they may be claiming through the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the Petition Scheduled Property, by causing any attempts of dispossession.

5. The trial Court vide order dated. 04.01.2021 allowed the above said interlocutory application by granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner herein by restraining the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the Petition Scheduled Property

6. The petitioner herein further had filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 114 of 2021 in I.A. No. 1862 of 2019 in the subject suit under Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the Station House Officer, P.S. Ghatkesar to provide police protection, and to initiate appropriate action against the respondents or any person claiming through them, in the event of any further interference with the petitioner’s lawful enjoyment and possession of the plaint schedule property.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein seeking police protection by observing that the petitioner failed to place on record any photographs or documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged disturbances in relation to the suit schedule property; that the petitioner had not specified any particular date on which such interference allegedly occurred after the passing of the injunction order in I.A. No. 1862 of 2019. Moreover, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to support his contention that the respondents were continuing to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property.

8. The trial Court further observed that in cases of disobedience or breach of an order of temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, the appropriate remedy lies under Order XXXIX rule 2A of CPC, which empowers the Court to punish such disobedience by directing civil imprisonment or by attachment of the property of the person found guilty of violating the injunction. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner, having failed to seek relief under the proper provision of law and not having supported his application with any evidence of breach, is not entitled to the relief sought.

9. Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 05.01.2022 the petitioner herein had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 10.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 11. The petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid; that the impugned Order dated 05.01.2022 passed in I.A. No. 114 of 2021 in I.A. No. 1862 of 2019 is erroneous, contrary to law, and unsustainable on facts and legal principles; that the Trial Court, having already granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner in I.A. No. 1862 of 2019, and having itself observed that no appeal w