THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4131 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Mohd Adnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

In spite of service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.24 of 2024 in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021, wherein petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. for grant of police aid for implementing injunction order dated 28.04.2021, has been dismissed.

3. The revision petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.574 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent and her agents from interfering with the renovation work carried out in the suit schedule property consisting of house bearing M.C.No.6-2-941/A/202, situated on the 2^nd floor admeasuring 400 Sq.Feet, situated at Khairtabad Main Road, Hyderabad. Along with the said suit, I.A.No.53 of 2021 is filed seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondent and her agents from obstructing the revision petitioner from carrying out renovation work and the said petition was allowed by order dated 28.04.2021. Pursuant to the said order, when there was obstruction, the I.A. under revision was filed seeking police aid and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present revision petition is preferred.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court has ignored the settled preposition that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that its order is implemented in its true letter and granting of police aid is not a favour to the revision petitioner, but is a bounded duty of the Court. Further, the trial Court erred in understanding the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1977 of 2022 setting aside earlier order in I.A.No.88 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021 and therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. As per the record, I.A.No.88 of 2021 was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the trial Court seeking grant of police aid to implement the order dated 28.04.2021 in I.A.No.53 of 2021. Said I.A.No.88 of 2021 was disposed of denying the police aid. Aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No.1977 of 2022 has been preferred and the same was disposed of on 04.01.2024 with the following order:

“6. …Even admitting that there is some issue between the parties, as the trial Court has already granted injunction order after hearing both sides on merits, to protect the same, granting police aid cannot be said to be delayed one. The suit is still pending and it has not attained finality. As such the petitioner is entitled for the police aid. Granting police aid will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The police will come to the aid only to the extent of order granted by the trial Court and not for any other purpose. As such, the petitioner herein is granted liberty to file a fresh petition and trial Court can consider the same on merits independently.”

6. As per the above said order in C.R.P.No.1977 of 2020, the police aid was to be granted for implementation of the order, which is granted by the trial Court and not for any other purposes and such police aid is also not for the purpose of causing any prejudice to the respondent. On the basis of the said order, when a fresh I.A. i.e., the I.A. under revision was filed, again the I.A. was dismissed on the ground that material produced to prove the disobedience of the injunction order in the form of pen-drive does not prove any such event. In the absence of the evidence about the disobedience, it is held that there is no necessity to grant police aid, as such, the I.A. has been dismissed.

7. A perusal of the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1977 of 2022 shows that there is a direction to the revision petitioner to file a fresh petition and that the trial Court was directed to consider the same on merits