Police protection for the implementation of an injunction is generally not granted on the basis of an ex parte ad interim injunction; it typically requires an order passed on merits after hearing both parties, unless extraordinary circumstances prevail.

ORDER:

Heard Sri S. Vijaya Prashanth, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a revision preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.236 of 2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2022, wherein the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking the relief of grant of police aid with a direction to the Station House Officer, Choutuppal, to provide police protection in implementation of order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2022, dated 09.09.2022, has been dismissed.

3. The revision petitioners have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein along with an application seeking ad interim injunction to restrict the interference with the suit schedule property. The trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction by order dated 09.09.2022 in I.A.No.582 of 2022 and the same was continuing. Thereafter, the respondents filed counter and written statement in the main suit. While so, on 10.07.2023 the respondents along with others allegedly tried to enter into the land of the revision petitioners and dispossess them. The said attempts were resisted by the revision petitioners and the respondents threatened to come again and occupy the property forcibly. When the revision petitioners approached the SHO, Choutuppal, to take necessary action, the police refused to do so, on the pretext that the dispute is civil in nature. Therefore, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.236 of 2023 before the trial Court seeking police protection.

4. The respondents opposed the said petition before the trial Court by filing counter alleging that the revision petitioners have tried to take undue advantage of the ex parte injunction granted by the trial Court. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the suit is filed with the ulterior motive of illegally grabbing the property belonging to the respondents. The lands of the revision petitioners are elsewhere and they have nothing to do with the alleged suit schedule property. The case of the respondents is that the revision petitioners are not in actual possession, but want to take illegal possession by filing a suit.

5. The trial Court considered the question as to whether the revision petitioners are entitled to grant of police protection as prayed for and dismissed the said application on the ground that when the alleged interference took place there was only ad interim injunction i.e., on 10.07.2023. Further, temporary injunction was granted on merits by disposing the I.A.No.585 of 2022 vide order dated 03.06.2024. Since there was no injunction granted on merits in I.A.No.585 of 2022 as on the alleged date of interference i.e., on 10.07.2023 and there is no allegation of interference after granting of temporary injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2022 on 03.06.2024, the petition filed seeking police protection has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioners pleaded that on 10.07.2023, the respondents and their associates have entered into the suit schedule property, which is in possession of the revision petitioners and therefore, there is need for grant of police protection and therefore, they approached the police. While so, the trial Court has erroneously concluded that there was no violation of injunction or