HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2640 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

18.07.2024 in I.A.No.267 of 2022 in O.S.No.232 of 2022 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Ramannapet.

2. Heard Pasala Jojappa, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of Sri Venkataramanaiah, learned counsel for sole respondent, despite entering appearance.

3. The petitioner herein is Plaintiff and respondent herein is defendant before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed the O.S.No.232 of 2022, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property and along with suit, an application in I.A.No.247 of 2022 is filed for temporary injunction. The trial Court vide order dated 26.09.2022, granted ad-interim injunction and subsequently the same was made absolute on 17.11.2023, after due enquiry and considering the material placed on record by the parties. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A.No. 267 of 2022, seeking Police protection alleging violation of interim orders and frequent interference of the respondent in the suit schedule property and the trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2024, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that after enquiry, ad-interim injunction was granted by the trial Court on 26.09.2022 and the respondent appeared and filed counter. Thereafter, trial Court on due consideration of contention and material placed on record by both the parties made interim order absolute on 17.11.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though orders are subsisting, the respondent is interfering with the suit schedule property and when the petitioner tried to resist them, respondent abused the petitioner in a filthy language and threatened that he will file a case against the petitioner under SC/ST Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.267 of

2022 for Police protection.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though various FIRs were registered against the respondent under various provisions of IPC, the trial Court, without considering those aspects erroneously dismissed the application on the sole ground that no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record by the petitioner establishing the alleged interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that case was registered against the respondent for interfering with the possession of the petitioner though interim injunction was in force.

7. Perusal of the record would disclose that the trial Court dismissed the application on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to establish the alleged interference beyond reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities for causing such interference was fake and that mere filing of petition and having self serving statements will not suffice an extraordinary power of Police protection under Section 151 of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with revision petition has placed on record seven(07) FIRs registered against the respondent under various provisions of IPC i.e., F.I.R.Nos. 144/2023, 145/2023, 12/2024, 60/2024, 61/2024, 109/2024. From the above mentioned FIRs, it is clearly evident that respondent has in fact interfered with the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record proceedings dated 19.02.2024 of District Forest Officer as per which respondent has received teak trees in suit schedule property and penalty was also imposed on him.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent also filed W.P.No.476 of 2024 against the District Collector, Tahsildar and Station House officer, in which petitioner