THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1820 of 2025

ORDER :

Heard Mr.Ravkinath K. learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the material available on record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order, dated 27.03.2025, passed in I.A.No.564 of 2024 in I.A.No.1021 of 2023 in O.S.No.3905 of 2023 by the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

3. On 13.06.2025, this Court had issued notices to respondents and the notices issued to the respondents have come back with an endorsement “not claimed” by the respondents. Thus, with the endorsement “not claimed”, this Court presumed that the notices have been served upon the respondents.

4. The instant revision petition has been filed assailing the rejection of a petition filed under Section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’), seeking police protection in the course of implementation of the order, dated 18.03.2024, passed in I.A.No.1021 of 2023 in O.S.No.3905 of 2023.

5. The original suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is for grant of perpetual injunction so far as to restrain interference being caused by the private respondents on the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property enjoyed by the petitioner/plaintiff and along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 vide I.A.No.1021 of 2023 in O.S.No.3095 of 2023 was filed and which stood allowed on

18.03.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has not been further challenged before any higher forum and as such, the order still holds good. Meanwhile however, the respondents have been still in total violation of the injunction granted by the trial court restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property are trying to interfere. It was in this context that the application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. was filed for grant of sufficient police protection.

7. Considering the fact that the order of injunction granted by the trial court does not seem to have been interfered with by any of the higher authorities, it has to be ensured by the trial court that the order passed by the Court is honoured in its letter and spirit.

8. Another fact which reflects from the order of injunction is that it is not the case of the respondents that they are the owners of the said property or they have any title/right over the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the order passed by the court granting injunction reflects the stand of the respondents of the suit schedule property being a government land. Though the government till date has not raised any objection or claim over the said property. Moreover, the petitioner has a registered sale deed in his favour which also has gone unchallenged till now. If the stand of the respondents is that of the property being a government land, under the given circumstances, can the respondents take law in their hands and try to dispossess the petitioner who has a registered sale deed of the said property.

9. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow the instant civil revision petition and set aside the order, dated 27.03.2025, passed in I.A.No.564 of 2024 in I.A.No.1021 of 2023 in O.S.No.3905 of 2023 and direct the trial court to issue necessary instructions to the concerned authorities ensuring that necessary police protection are provided as and when necessary in the implementation of the order of injunction granted by the trial court.

10. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date: 19.09.2025 AQS