IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1571 of 2019 Date: 10.04.2026 Between:

P.Rajeshwar Sawji ...Petitioner AND D.Satyanarayana and two others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 14.06.2019, passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Prashanthnagar (for short ‘trial Court’) in E.A.No.3 of 2019 in E.P.No.37 of 2019 in O.S.No.46 of 2011.

2. Heard Sri Mr.Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.A.Achyuth Bharathwaj, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 are referred to as ‘defendant’ and the ‘plaintiff’, respectively.

4. The brief facts of the case:

The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.46 of 2011 and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff granting perpetual injunction, by way of a judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2019. Even though perpetual injunction order is subsisting in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants are repeatedly interfering with his possession illegally and dismantled the part of construction of boundary wall and a dwelling house, thereby, deliberately violating the said order. As such, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.37 of 2019 seeking execution of the decree of perpetual injunction, dated 25.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.46 of 2011. During the pendency of the said E.P., the plaintiff filed E.A.No.3 of 2019 seeking to grant police aid to him to protect his possession over the subject land. The said E.A. was allowed by the trial Court on 14.06.2019 and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“Heard. Satisfied the submission of petitioner. Perused the record and shows that, this Court decreed the suit for perpetual injunction by petitioner/Decree holder.

Therefore, E.P. Schedule property has to be protected by granting police aid. As such, Begumpet police is directed to protect the E.P. schedule property by giving police protection.”

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed by the revision petitioner/defendant No.3.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the order granting perpetual injunction could not have been passed in respect of the suit schedule property, as the same is incapable of proper identification with the aid of boundaries. He further submits that the two documents filed and relied upon by the revision petitioner do not establish her peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. He further submits that the trial Court passed the impugned order without assigning any reasons, which is an essential requirement, while granting police aid. Such relief, being serious in nature, is susceptible to misuse by the party in whose favour it is granted. Admittedly, there exists a separate provision under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC for enforcement of decrees, which has not been invoked by the plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that no notice was served upon her prior to passing of the impugned order and the order was passed behind her back, without affording any opportunity to her to contest the same.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the execution of injunction order is governed by the provisions of Order XXI of CPC. In the event of disobedience by the J.Dr., the remedy available to the D.Hr. is to seek enforcement by attachment of the property of the J.Dr. or by detention of the J.Dr. in civil prison, subject to proof of willful disobedience of the injunction order passed by the trial Court.

9. Admittedly, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the disobedience on the part of the revision petitioner, the trial Court has rightly granted Police aid and that no error has been committed by the tri