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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38619

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J
Vishwantha SharadaBai – Appellant
Versus
Ganta Bhaskar – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1513 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L.Preetham Reddy
For the Respondents: None

Civil Courts possess inherent power under Section 151 CPC to grant police protection for the implementation of injunction orders, but such aid must be restricted to 'rarest of rare' cases and requires substantial material evidence of threat or actual violation to satisfy the court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 94 and 151 - Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A - Order 21 Rule 32 - Perpetual Injunction - Police Protection (Police Aid) - Principles for granting - Distinction between prevention of violation and dealing with actual disobedience - Requirement of proof - Judicial discretion - Appellate intervention. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 33, 34)

(B) Police Protection in Civil Matters - Civil courts possess inherent power under S. 151 CPC to grant police aid to ensure compliance with injunction orders, but such power must be exercised only in 'rarest of rare' cases and with great caution upon substantiating material evidence of threat or violation. (Paras 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-plaintiff obtained an injunction against the respondents. Alleging interference by the defendants, the petitioner moved an application before the Junior Civil Judge seeking police protection, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner challenged this dismissal in the High Court.

Findings of Court:
While the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked the power to grant police aid based on a superseded judgment, the High Court nonetheless dismissed the revision petition because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient material evidence to substantiate the alleged threat or violation, merely relying on assertions.

Issues: Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application for police protection and whether the petitioner is entitled to such relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Civil courts have the inherent jurisdiction to grant police aid to implement injunctions, even if specific provisions like Order 39 Rule 2A or Order 21 Rule 32 are available. However, this relief cannot be granted on mere asking; there must be strong documentary or material proof of the threat or violation of the court's decree.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the petition for police protection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. analysis of the trial court's dismissal and grounds for revision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. comprehensive review of precedents regarding police aid jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. findings of the court emphasizing caution in granting police protection. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

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.

2.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.

3.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.

3.c It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that there was any threat, breach, disobedience or violation of orders of injunction. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the Courts in India repeatedly held

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