##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

C.R.P.NO. 3234 of 2025

DATED 28.01.2026

Between

Bhukya Venkanna.

… Petitioner

AND

Cheemala Puspha

… Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the

Agent to the Government, Khammam District, in I.A.No.43 of

2024 in I.A.No.56 of 2011 in O.S.No.23 of 2023, dated

20.02.2025.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil

Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff,

who filed the suit for perpetual injunction before the Court of

the Agent to the Government as the subject land was in the

agency area. The original suit was filed in the year 2011 and

was numbered as O.S.No.87 of 2011 and was filed with an

interim application for interim injunction, but the said I.A., was

dismissed on 01.03.2013 after hearing both the parties.

2

Thereafter, another petition in I.A.No.56 of 2011 was taken up

and orders were passed on 27.08.2018 granting temporary

injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said

interim order, the respondent/defendant preferred C.M.A.No.01

of 2021, which was allowed and the order was passed in favour

of the respondent in I.A.No.56 of 2011, dated 27.08.2018.

Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before the Court

to transfer the said suit and the same was allowed and

renumbered as O.S.No.23 of 2023 and thereafter, the defendant

filed an I.A.No.43 of 2024 in I.A.No.56 of 2011 in O.S.No.87 of

2011 in R.C.No.23 of 2023 seeking police protection alleging

that the plaintiff, without having any order in his favour, is

troubling the defendant. The trial Court has allowed the same

and challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is

filed by the plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the Agent to the Government has failed to consider the case of

the petitioner in its correct perspective and that the impugned

order is not passed in the light of the settled principles of law

and therefore, it is vitiated. It is further submitted that non-

filing of a counter in the I.A.No.43 of 2024, by itself cannot

3

justify the grant of police aid where such an order has an effect

of dispossessing the petitioner from the suit schedule property,

more so when the impugned order cannot be passed in favour of

to the defendant effecting the rights of the plaintiff. It is

submitted that no relief can be granted to a defendant in a suit

filed by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that against the

order in C.M.A.No.1 of 2021, the plaintiff has filed

C.R.P.No.3012 of 2022, which is pending before this Court and

during the pendency of the revision petition, the trial Court

ought not to have passed the order of granting police aid to the

defendant. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the order

dated 20.02.2025.

4. This Court had issued notice to the respondent, but

in spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to

the averments made in the civil revision petition, has placed

reliance upon the averments made in the Civil Revision Petition

and has also placed reliance upon the decision of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, as it then was, in the case of

J.Jagannath Reddy Vs. L.Laxmi Devi (Smt.) and Others, 1998 (1) ALD 453, for

4

the proposition that granting of police aid to a party in a

pending Civil Suit with regard to protection of suit property, is

not legal and that the party violating the injunction order

passed in the suit can be proceeded against only under Order

21 Rule 32 of C.P.C.

6. Having regard to the contentions of the petitioner

and also that the respondent has not appeared before this Court

in spite of service of notice, this Court is of the opinion that the

respondent is not interested to pursue this Civil Revision

Petition. Further, this Court is of the opinion that no order can

be passed against the plaintiff in the suit by granting police

protection to the defendant in the su