THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.140 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri. Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024 in I.A. No. 159 of 2024 in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, ‘the trial Court’) wherein, the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant police protection by the Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, for implementation of orders in I.A. No. 144 of 2024 in O.S. No. 376 of 2024, has been dismissed.

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No. 376 of 2024.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 376 of 2024 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from causing interference and obstruction over the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Survey No.50/28 admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts situated at Madanpally village and grampanchayath, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing document No.2848 of 2011 dated 16.11.2011 from the original owners namely Nenawath Gobria and his family members. Nenawath Gobria and others offered to sell and the suit schedule property and the same was purchased for valid sale consideration. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction on 24.07.2024 and after grant of ad-interim injunction, on 01.08.2024, there was an attempt by the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, I.A. No.159 of 2024 was filed seeking grant of police protection.

5. To press for grant of police aid, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harshad Bishnoi and another1, wherein it is held that when there is violation of an order of injunction, the

2007 (2) Supreme 772

Court can exercise its inherent powers and direct the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties. The property was transferred in violation of interim order not to alienate and the possession was delivered to third person. In such instance, since there was violation of the order granted, the grant of police aid was deemed necessary.

6. Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Gampala Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy², wherein it is held that when there is an injunction order, police protection may be granted. In this case ad-interim injunction was granted and the same was made absolute as the respondent choose to remain ex parte. The facts of the cases in Meera Chauhan (Supra 1) and Gampala Anthaiah and others (Supra 2) where interim order was granted, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as only ad-interim injunction was granted and it was not made absolute.

7. Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in E.Venkatarama Naidu and another v. E.Ramachandra Naidu

2013 SCC OnLine AP 380

and another³, wherein it is held that a party who obtained temporary injunction orders and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC or application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(5) of the CPC but he can also file an application seeking police aid under Section 151 of the CPC. There is no