Dismissed

Y.C. Yellappa and 2 Others v. Y.Somaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022CRP/675/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging the grant of police aid under Section 151 CPC for enforcing interim injunctions in a property dispute. Court upheld trial court's order, finding it tenable and discretionary. Petition dismissed to expedite original suit disposal.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Original suit directed to be disposed expeditiously within six months; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Y.C. Yellappa and 2 Others Vs Y.Somaiah — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY .THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 675 OF 2015

¶6

Mrrior ^2? of the Constltution of India aggrieved by the th^i^ ^2-2014 passed in I.A.NO. 402/2014. in O.S.NO: 49 OF 2013 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge. Kalyandurg. Anantapur district. Between: Ag®d about 58

¶7

Cultivation. Kurlapalii Village.kalyandurg Mandal. Anantapur^DistriS"^^’

¶8

1. Y.C.a t;- r Ramakrishna. S/o Y.C.Yellappa. Aged about 28 years Hindu Cultivation ,. iKurlapalii Village.Kalyandurg Mandal. Anantapur District,. ’

¶9

1. Y.C. Kudapelii Balakrishna, Vi,lage;'t^^an^^^^^^^^ «"**■

¶10

...Petitioners/Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

...RespondentZPIaintiff

¶13

CRPMP/I.A, NO: 885 OF 2015)

¶14

in the Sk fflpd >" «’® circumstances stated of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to OF 2013 on ?heTlP Passed in I.A.NO. AQ2l2Qyl in O%.NO; 49 OF 2013. on the file of the Junior Civil Judge. Kalyandurg. Anantapur district.

¶15

Counsel for the PetitionerfsjiSRL K.RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY

¶16

» Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V L SURENDRA

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.675 of 2015

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg, in I.A.No.402 of 2014 in O.S.No.49 of 2013, dated 17.12.2014 wherein and whereby the trial Court allowed petition filed by respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C seeking police aid for implementation of interim injunction ordeqs passed in I.A.No.l42 of 2013, dated 09.07.2013.

¶23

The case of the respondent/plaintiff before trial Court in brief is that he filed suit for Permanent Injunction against the petitioners/defendants wherein he also filed petition for seeking temporary injunction in I.A.No.l42 of 2013 and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 09.07.2013 on merits. He submits that the petitioners/defendants are highhandedly trying to enter into the plaint schedule property inspite of interim injunction orders in his favour, for . which, he approached Station House Officer, Kalyandurg Rural Police Station, who refused to entertain his complaint and asked to get specific orders from the Court. Hence, the respondent filed petition

¶24

¶25

seeking for police aid for implementation of interim injunction orders granted by the Court in his favour.

¶26

The 3*^ petitioner/R.3 filed counter before trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent belong to one political party managed revenue officials with political influence obtained copy of cultivation accounts. They, also submit that they are law abiding citizens whereas the respondent has political back ground and having unruly elements and threatening them highhandedly. It is the contention of the petitioners that against the orders passed by trial Court granting interim injunction, they preferred appeal due to that pending disposes of appeal petition seeking for police aid is not maintainable. They pray to dismiss the petition.

¶27

After hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders granting police aid to the respondent directing the Station House Officer, Rural Police Station, Kalyandurg, to provide necessary police a aid to the petitioner to implement temporary injunction orders passed in I.A.No.142 of 2013, dated 09.07.2013.

¶28

¶29

Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg, the petitioners filed present civil revision petition stating that impugned orders are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submit that grating police aid in a petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C is not tenable as the respondent/plaintiff has to file execution petition under Order XXI, Rule 39, Rule 2A or under Order XXI, Rule 32 of C.P.C not under Section 151 of C.P.C. It is also the contention of the Revision Petitioners that they filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the orders of temporary injunction granted by trial Court with a petition to condone delay of 457 days, which case posted on 20.02.2015 for considering delay condonation petition. They pray to allow the revision petition.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. He would submit that the respondent/plaintiff instead of filing petition under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A C.P.C if there is any violation of interim injunction orders chosen to file petition seeking police aid under Sertion 151 C.P.C, which is not tenable under Law. He would further submit that police aid cannot be granted when the petitioners are containing that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property and the petitioners also preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. He prays to allow the civil revision petition.

¶31

¶32

There is no representation for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶33

Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

¶34

"Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Section 227 of Constitution of India?"

¶35

POINT:-

¶36

Before going to the merits of the case, it wouid be beneficial to quote Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) of CPC, which reads as under:-

¶37

2-A:Consequence of disobedience of breach of injunction:

¶38

(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1, or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property

¶39

¶40

attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

¶41

10. On perusal of above referred provision, which makes it clear that if opposite party violates interim injunction orders passed by the Court, party who complaints there is a violation or disobedience of the orders got remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C, but it is not only the duty of the Court to punish the wrong doer and also to see that the orders of the Court implemented and also protect the interest of party who succeeded in the Court. For which there is a provision under Section 151 C.P.C. which reads as under:-

¶42

ISl.Saving of inherent powers of the Court:-

¶43

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

¶44

The inherent power of the Court is intended to meet the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the Court has got inherent power to grant poiice aid to meet the ends of justice, or to prevent from pferson violating the orders of the Court. The Division Bench by this Court had an occasion to elaborately discuss

¶45

¶46

petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C seeking police protection in Polavarapu Nagamani and others vesus Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others 2010(6) ALT page 92 (DB) wherein this Court after elaborately discussing different provisions and precedent law issued guide lines to all the civil Courts with regard to granting of police aid. Now it would be beneficial to extract para 25 of the Judgment, which reads as under:-

¶47

Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction arc filed only to bring the defendants around the plaintiff's view and accept some via- media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under section 151 of C PC seeking police protection. Instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to. harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the Courts should be very cautious and vigilant not to introduce police intervention in civil

¶48

¶49

adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the civil Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise abundant caution m dealing with interlocutory applicafions filed by the party obtaining an order of Injunction seeking police protection. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, we hold and lay down as under.

¶50

(I) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the court.

¶51

(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Sec.94 (.) or section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.

¶52

(iii)If an application is f filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection ir infiposing necessary conditions

¶53

¶54

not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.

¶55

(iv)The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme court in Chottu Ram V/s. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 1 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002)4 SCC 21, in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court.

¶56

Now above referred decision as per guide line No.iii wherein it is held that the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.

¶57

Now coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent herein filed suit for injunction simplicitor against the respondent wherein he admittedly filed petldon seeking for temporary injunction, which granted in his favour on merits.

¶58

¶59

I f.

¶60

No document is filed to show that the revision petitioners herein have filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the orders passed by the trial Court grating interim injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff. Even no orders of stay granted by Appellate Court is filed due to that even filing appeal against the orders passed by trial Court is not operates as a stay unless specific orders of stay passed by the Appellate Court. It is also not the contention of the revision petitioners that they are not interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff as they pleaded in their counter that petitioner N0.3/R.3 has been in continuation possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. When trial Court has granted temporary injunction inspite of the said orders still revision petitioners are continuing to assert that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which gives cause of action for the respondent/plaintiff to file a petition seeking police aid. Learned trial Judge after considering orders passed in temporary injunction petition on merits in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, rightly granted police aid to the respondent/plaintiff for implementation of interim injunction orders, which is not suspended or stayed by any Appellate Court. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by learned trial Judge granting police aid to the respondent/plaintiff

¶61

¶62

warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶63

of India.

¶64

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶65

At the request of learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners as the matter is pertaining to the year 2013, learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the Original Suit as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of Orders passed by this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶66

^Qjpse^ntly, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall .' stand closed.

¶67

1 iifi’s ififeflrtf'^y if any granted is stand closed.

¶68

s 1

¶69

ASSISTANT I^^SaIr //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER

¶70

¶71

li; V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Arnaravati 3. OneCCto Sri. OneCCtoSri-vSdtAdS?^^^^^^ 4.

¶72