Allowed

Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Aug 2021WP/10881/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking police aid to implement a temporary injunction granted by the civil court. The court held that writ petitions are maintainable for executing interim injunctions and rejected arguments regarding alternative remedies, appeal pendency, and parallel proceedings. Police aid is directed subject to the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Police aid granted for implementation of temporary injunction order, subject to the result of pending Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2021.

Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

5THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.10881 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking police aid for effective implementation of the temporary injunction order dated 10.02.2021 that was granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.224 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram.

¶4

As per the case pleaded by the petitioner, he has purchased Ac.10-00 cents of land covered by R.S.No.195/2B situated at Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, under a registered sale deed, dated 17-07-2020 from one Smt. Kuchimanchi Uma Maheswara Rao for valid consideration and he became absolute owner of the said property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that, when the 4^th respondent interfered with his possession, claiming that he is the cultivating tenant under the vendor of the petitioner, that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram, for permanent injunction restraining the 4^th respondent and his henchmen from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land and that he has also filed an Interlocutory Application No.224 of 2020 in the said suit, seeking temporary injunction and that the said civil Court has granted temporary injunction on merits after hearing both the parties on 10.02.2021. It is stated that, C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 was preferred by the 4^th respondent against the said order of temporary injunction before the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, but no order suspending the said order of temporary injunction, was granted.

¶5

¶6

The petitioner states that despite passing of temporary injunction against the petitioner, that the 4^th respondent has been interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land in utter violation of the temporary injunction. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition seeking police aid for effective implementation of the said order.

¶7

The 4^th respondent has filed counter stating that his family has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.25.85 cents covered by S.No.195 of Gokavaram village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, from the time of their ancestors as cultivating tenants under estate of Pithapuram Rajah and village Gokavaram is an inam estate.

¶8

It is stated that the litigation in respect of the said land commenced in the year 1956 before various statutory authorities regarding entitlement of pattas and the present writ petition is a part of a 3^rd round litigation in the said process. It is pleaded that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are also initiated at the instance of the family of one Kuchimanchi Seethayamma and the 4^th respondent and his brothers filed Criminal Petition No.10866 of 2017 before this Court for quash and this Court quashed the said order on 28-11-2017.

¶9

It is further pleaded that while so, the present registered sale deed which is a void one, was pressed into service and the writ petitioner has filed the above suit and initially obtained exparte interim injunction order and thereafter temporary injunction order was passed making the ad-interim injunction order absolute on 10.02.2021. It is stated that this respondent has preferred C.M.A. against the said order on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the said C.M.A. is now pending. It is further

¶10

¶11

pleaded that the petitioner can as well pursue his remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”), if there is any violation of the Court’s order and thereby prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in I.A.No.224 of 2020 which was filed seeking temporary injunction in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram, the competent civil Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the 4^th respondent as per order dated 10-02-2021 and for effective implementation of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed seeking police aid, as the 4^th respondent has been interfering with his possession of the land, despite the aforesaid order of temporary injunction that was passed by the competent civil Court. He would further submit that the application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking police aid, was withdrawn and as such, the present writ petition is maintainable. Therefore, he would pray for grant of police aid to implement the order of temporary injunction.

¶14

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that as there is a civil suit pending between both the parties, that unless there is an order of the competent Court, to grant police aid for implementation of the order of injunction, that police normally will not interfere with the said civil dispute. Therefore, he would submit that if any order is passed granting police aid, that the police will provide police aid for implementation of the said order.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that initially ad-interim injunction was granted exparte and the said injunction petition was not disposed of within a period of thirty (30) days, as per the mandate contained under Order 39, Rule 3 of C.P.C. and as such, the said interim injunction order became nonest. So, no police aid can be granted to implement the order which became nonest. He would further submit that the petitioner has initially filed a petition before the trial Court for grant of police aid to implement the order of temporary injunction, which was made absolute, on merits and during pendency of the said petition, he is before this Court by way of this writ petition and sought to maintain parallel proceedings before the trial Court and the High Court and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He further contends that the 4^th respondent has preferred C.M.A.NO.3 of 2021 against the order of temporary injunction passed in I.A.No.224 of 2020 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same is pending and as appeal is continuation of the proceedings of injunction application that the present writ petition for grant of police aid, is not maintainable. On the aforesaid three grounds, the 4^th respondent opposed the present writ petition and learned counsel for 4^th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the ad-interim injunction order that was initially passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in I.A.No.224 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 was subsequently made absolute on merits, after hearing both the parties and granted temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, when the Court has passed an order granting temporary injunction, till disposal of the suit, on merits, it is no more open to the

¶18

¶19

4^th respondent to contend that the ad-interim injunction order that was earlier granted, became nonest for non-compliance with the provisions mandated under Order 39, Rule 3 of C.P.C. Therefore, the said contention is hereby rejected.

¶20

As regards the other contention, that the petitioner got alternative remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. for willful disobedience of the temporary injunction and under Section 95(e) of C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. and that the present writ petition is not maintainable without exhausting the said alternative remedies is concerned, it is well settled law that the person in whose favour, a decree for permanent injunction or an order of temporary injunction was passed by a competent civil Court, that he got two remedies. He can as well approach the trial Court which passed the said decree or order and seek police aid for effective implementation of the said decree or order, or he can approach the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police aid for effective implementation of the said decree or temporary injunction order. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner got remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(A), Section 95(e) etc., cannot be a bar to maintain the present writ petition. Therefore, the said contention is also liable to be rejected.

¶21

Apropos the contention that the 4^th respondent has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the temporary injunction order in C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada is concerned, admittedly, no stay is granted against the temporary injunction order that was passed by the trial Court. Therefore, when no stay was granted in the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, mere pendency of the said appeal cannot be a bar for grant of

¶22

¶23

police aid to the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the said contention is also liable to be rejected.

¶24

Regarding the contention that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of police aid before the trial Court and during pendency of the said application, he has filed this writ petition and the said parallel proceedings cannot be maintained, during pendency of this writ petition is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has withdrawn the application filed before the trial Court seeking police aid. Therefore, as the said application before the trial Court is now withdrawn, now there is no bar or impediment to entertain this writ petition.

¶25

Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the 4^th respondent opposing the present writ petition is legally sustainable.

¶26

The Honourable Apex Court in the case of P.R.Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others¹

¶27

held at para No.19 that :-

¶28

“A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.”

¶29

Therefore, the legal position is now clear that when there was a decree passed or an order at interlocutory stage, like the present one on merits, after hearing both the parties, writ Court can grant police aid by entertaining the writ petition filed to that effect for effective implementation of the said temporary injunction order.

¶30

1 2006 (4) SCC 501

¶31

¶32

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh also in the case of Subrtamanya vs. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others² also held that :-

¶33

“Police aid can be granted in a writ petition to implement the order of the temporary injunction”.

¶34

Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the above law annunciated in the above two judgments, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is maintainable and that the petitioner is entitled for police aid for effective implementation of the temporary injunction order that was granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

However, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the 4^th respondent that he got strong case to succeed in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal i.e. now pending on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same is not being disposed of and this order granting police aid, would cause detriment to the interest and right of the 4^th respondent in respect of the said land, learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, is hereby directed to dispose of the said C.M.A.No.3 of 2021, after hearing both the parties, on merits, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the said Court, whichever is earlier. This order granting police aid in this writ petition is subject to the result of the said C.M.A.No.3 of 2021.

¶36

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed granting police aid in favour of the petitioner as sought for and the respondent-police

¶37

2 2020 (4) ALT 62

¶38

¶39

officials shall provide necessary police aid for effective implementation of the aforesaid temporary injunction order. However, this order of granting police aid is subject to the result of the C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada. There shall be no costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶41

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶42

Date : 13-08-2021 ARR

¶43

¶44

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶45

WRIT PETITION No.10881 OF 2021

¶46