THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P.No.315 of 2025

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dt.18.11.2024 in IA.No.335 of 2023 in I.A.No.66 of 2022 in O.S.No.80 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite, notice being taken out to respondents No.1 & 3, the same is returned with postal endorsement ‘addressee refused’. Hence, the said notice is deemed as served in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in C.C.Alvi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another, (2007) 6 SCC 555. Insofar as the notice taken out to 2^nd respondent is concerned, despite same being served on the said respondent, there is no representation on her behalf either in person or through counsel. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for perpetual injunction and petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed the subject suit against the respondents/defendants for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially an ad-interim injunction order has been granted in his favour vide I.A.No.66 of 2022 on 21.02.2022; and that as the respondents sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in violation of the said order, he had filed the underlying interlocutory application viz., I.A.No.335 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC seeking for grant of police aid.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Court below taking note of the subsistence of ad-interim injunction order passed in IA.No.66 of 2022 in the suit, had allowed the underlying interlocutory application on

28.06.2024 granting police aid/protection for effective implementation of the injunction order dt.21.02.2022; that aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein had approached this Court by way of revision vide CRP.No.2711 of 2024; and that this Court by taking note of the fact that the order of ad-interim injunction granted being an ex- parte order, had set aside the said order granting police protection and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh.

7. Petitioner contends that on this Court setting aside the order granting police protection at the behest of the respondents herein and directing the trial Court to consider the application afresh, the Court below has rejected the underlying interlocutory application, on the ground that the petitioner having filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC vide I.A.No.507 of 2024, which is pending for filing of counter by the respondents, cannot maintain the underlying application under Section 151 of CPC.

8. Petitioner contends that the scope of an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is to punish the respondents for violation or breach of the injunction, while the relief sought for by the petitioner in the underlying application is to grant police aid/protection for implementation of the order passed by the Court below, and thus, the scope of both the applications are entirely different; and that the Court below has misdirected itself while considering the underlying application and erred in rejecting the same.

9. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in E Venkatraman Naidu vs. Ramchandra Naidu2

10. I have taken note of the above submissions made.

11. Firstly, it is to be noted that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC deals with consequences on disobedience or breach of the injunction and the said provision deals with the power, which a Court is required to exercise for

2 2015(3) ALT 238

disobedience or breach of injunction order by punishing the person, who is found guilty of such disobedience or breach by detaining in civil prison.

12. While by the petition f