SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 65167

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1513 OF 2021


ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order, dated 16.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.351 of 2019 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Andole, Jogipet, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to grant police protection to implement the order and decree, dated 25.09.2019, in C.M.A.No.02 of 2019 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property which is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.09-34 guntas in survey No.189/1/AA(1) and land to an extent of Ac.03-05 guntas in Survey No.189/5/3 (5), situated at Annaram Village of Papannapet Mandal, Medak District along with I.A.No.52 of 2018 seeking interim injunction till disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

2.a Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal in C.M.A No.02 of 2019, which was allowed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25.09.2009. As no appeal or revision was preferred against the said order, it attained finality. It is stated that on 25.11.2019 and 30.11.2019 when the petitioner along with her husband went to the agricultural land for harvesting the crop, meanwhile, respondent-defendant No.2 came to the suit schedule land and obstructed them from doing the same. Therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff herein has filed an application before the trial Court seeking police protection. It is further stated that despite there being an injunction order, dated 25.09.2009 which is a contested order granted by learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, respondent-police are not taking any steps to grant police protection to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Medak Rural, to grant police protection to the petitioner.

3.a Respondent-Defendant No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including title and possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that one Kishan Rao, who is original pattadar was declared as a surplus holder and that under the Land Ceiling Act 1973, he surrendered some of the lands to the Government. Subsequently, after Government assigned Ac.02-00 guntas of suit land to respondent No.1 in the year 1983 in Survey No.189/12, respondent No.1 died on 18.05.2018 leaving behind his mother and two sisters as legal heirs, who succeeded to the said land and since then they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

3.b It is further stated that the petitioner’s mother filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2001 including their land and the said suit was dismissed. Further, it is contended that respondent No.2 has not received any notice in aforesaid C.M.A and it is an ex parte order and that respondent No.2 is intending to file Civil Revision Petition against the said order.

3.c It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that there was any threat, breach, disobedience or violation of orders of injunction. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the Courts in India repeatedly held that police have no role in civil adjudication and the Courts should be very cautious and vigilant while granting police protection and cannot introduce the police at the instance of a cleaver and resourceful petitioner. It is further contended that if police protection is granted to the petitioner, respondent No.2 will dispossess him leading to multiplicity of litigation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Having perused the material on record and considering

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top