1. Suit for perpetual injunction regarding property — Temporary injunction granted — Subsequent petition for police aid dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Renuka Yara, J.
Kamal Prasad (Died) by LRs. and others – Petitioner
Versus
Mahant Sanjay Das –Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.3321 of 2024
Decided On : 23-10-2025
Important Points
Granting police aid to implement a temporary injunction is a court's duty, not a favor, particularly when police refuse to intervene in a dispute citing its civil nature, provided the injunction was granted based on a prima facie case.
Subject
Civil Law - Injunctions
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Implementation of Court Order - Police Aid - Granting of police aid to implement a temporary injunction is not a favor to the petitioner but a bounden duty of the Court to implement the order in its true letter and spirit (Para 4).
(B) Police Aid - Necessity of Grant - Where a party approaches the police to protect possession but is refused assistance on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, the necessity for grant of police aid to implement a court's temporary injunction order is established, especially when the injunction was granted after considering the merits, prima facie case, and balance of convenience (Para 5 and 6).
Facts of the case:
A suit for perpetual injunction was filed regarding a property, and a temporary injunction was granted in favor of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking police aid to implement the temporary injunction order, alleging interference by the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that there was no strong evidence to prove the respondent was violating the order or that there was an immediate risk of dispossession.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's finding that there was no need for urgent police action was incorrect. The fact that the petitioners approached the police indicates an event that warranted action to protect possession. Since the police declined to take a complaint on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature, the prayer for judicial police aid to implement the court's own order is justified.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing police aid to implement a temporary injunction order on the grounds of insufficient evidence of immediate risk, despite the police refusing to intervene in a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a court grants a temporary injunction after determining the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience, it is the court's bounden duty to implement that order. When a party's attempt to seek police protection is thwarted by the police citing the 'civil nature' of the dispute, the court must grant police aid to ensure its orders are not rendered ineffective.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside.
(B) Police Aid - Necessity of Grant - Where a party approaches the police to protect possession but is refused assistance on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, the necessity for grant of police aid to implement a court's temporary injunction order is established, especially when the injunction was granted after considering the merits, prima facie case, and balance of convenience (Para 5 and 6).
Facts of the case:
A suit for perpetual injunction was filed regarding a property, and a temporary injunction was granted in favor of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking police aid to implement the temporary injunction order, alleging interference by the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that there was no strong evidence to prove the respondent was violating the order or that there was an immediate risk of dispossession.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's finding that there was no need for urgent police action was incorrect. The fact that the petitioners approached the police indicates an event that warranted action to protect possession. Since the police declined to take a complaint on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature, the prayer for judicial police aid to implement the court's own order is justified.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing police aid to implement a temporary injunction order on the grounds of insufficient evidence of immediate risk, despite the police refusing to intervene in a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a court grants a temporary injunction after determining the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience, it is the court's bounden duty to implement that order. When a party's attempt to seek police protection is thwarted by the police citing the 'civil nature' of the dispute, the court must grant police aid to ensure its orders are not rendered ineffective.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
injunction
- temporary injunction
-
injunction
-
civil procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohammed Adnan
For the Respondent: Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry
For the Petitioner: Mohammed Adnan
For the Respondent: Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought police aid to implement temporary injunction; respondent denied threat and disputed possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. Once temporary injunction granted, court has bounden duty to implement it; police declining complaint warrants judicial police aid. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Court must grant police aid to implement a valid temporary injunction when there is threat of violation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application for police aid allowed. (Para 7 )
6. Is it a court's bounden duty to implement a temporary injunction order?
Yes, once a temporary injunction is granted after considering merits, it is the court's bounden duty to implement it in case of further interference. (Para 5 )
7. When should a court grant police aid to implement a temporary injunction?
When there is a threat of violation of the temporary injunction and the police have declined to act, the court should grant police aid to protect possession. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Does the court's finding on no immediate risk bar police aid for implementing an injunction?
No, because the court must enforce its own order; a finding that there is no immediate risk overlooks the duty to implement the injunction against any interference. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER :
Renuka Yara, J.
The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/LRs aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.615 of 2024 in I.A.No.607 of 2017 in O.S.No.1814 of 2017, dated 04.09.2024 by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry, learned counsel for respondent/defendant.
3. Initially, the deceased petitioner No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.1814 of 2017 seeking perpetual injunction against the sole respondent with respect to the property consisting of open plot of land with small houses admeasuring 152 sq.yds., bearing MCH No.14- 9-641 situated at Jumerat Bazar, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased petitioner No.1 was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and out of said property, 25 sq.yds. was let out to third parties. When the tenants committed default, suit for eviction has been filed and tenants failed to comply with the eviction orders. The petitioners filed writ petition and the same was allowed. When the respondent made an attempt to interfere with the possession of the deceased petitioner over the suit schedule property, a police complaint was sought to be given and when the same was refused, the suit for perpetual injunction was filed. In said suit, I.A.No.607 of 2017 was filed seeking temporary injunction. Said petition was allowed granting temporary injunction vide order dated 06.11.2023. Thereafter, I.A.No.615 of 2024 was filed seeking police aid for implementing the orders in I.A.No.607 of 2017. However, said I.A has been dismissed and therefore, the present revision is filed.
4. A perusal of impugned order shows that the petitioners herein are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the same is refuted by the respondent. The respondent claimed that there is no threat of dispossession by him. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned Trial Court held that there is no strong evidence to prove that the respondent is violating the order and that there is immediate risk of dispossession. Further observation is made about giving police complaint and police not taking any action as the matter is civil in nature. The situation according to the learned Trial Court shows that there is no need of urgent police action, as such, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred on the ground that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order overlooking the settled proposition of law that granting of police aid is not a favour to the petitioner but a bounden duty to implement the temporary injunction order in its true letter and spirit. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. The record shows that a suit in O.S.No.1814 of 2017 for perpetual injunction was filed along with I.A.No.607 of 2017 seeking temporary injunction. The learned Trial Court has allowed the petition seeking temporary injunction after hearing both parties and marking Exs.P1 to P4. Only when the Trial Court concluded that there is prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the temporary injunction was granted. Once temporary injunction was granted that too after considering merits of the case both the parties, it is bounden duty of the Court to implement the same in case of further interference. The finding of the learned Trial Court that there was an occasion for the revision petitioners to approach the police for giving complaint against the attempts to dispossess them, that too during Court vacation, there is a need to grant police aid. The police when the revision petitioners approached directly have declined to take complaint on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. If so, when the petitioners approached the Court for implementation of the temporary injunction order granted in I.A.No.607 of 2017, there is a need to grant the same.
6. The contentions of the learned counse
