Allowed

Gutha Narsaiah v. Nallani Pedavemgulappa

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRP/2431/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the Single Judge held that the lower court erred in granting police aid under Section 151 CPC. The order was set aside due to non-application of mind as the applicant failed to substantiate specific allegations regarding the petitioner removing a wall or opening a passage into the property.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision granting police aid is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the cross motion is disposed of as infructuous.

Gutha Narsaiah Vs Nallani Pedavemgulappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.2431 of 2012

¶2

Date : 11-10-2012

¶3

Between :

¶4

Gutha Narsaiah .. Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

Nallani Padavemgulappa and 2 others .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for petitioner : Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri A.S.C. Bose for Sri A. Narasimha Rao

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 28-2-2012 in I.A.No.137/2011 in I.A.No.473/2011 in O.S.No.42/2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

¶11

I have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel representing Sri A. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶12

The respondents filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A.No.139/2011 for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from entering the petition schedule property and removing the MN wall and opening a passage into the plaint schedule property as shown in the plaint plan. By order dated 13-6-2011, the lower Court has allowed the said I.A. C.M.A.No.8/2011 filed by the petitioners questioning the said order was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Anantapur. Thereafter, the respondents filed

¶13

I.A.No.137/2011 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for grant of the Police aid. In para-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the respondents averred as under:

¶14

“The respondent is a powerful man in the village and was Ex-Sarpanch. Inspite of temporary injunction the respondent is frequently interfering with our peaceful possession by keeping unlock cart, tractor, agriculture implements. When we remove them he is unnecessary picking up quarrels. When reported the matter in Pedda Pappur Police Station, the Police are not enter fairing our request or providing any aid on the ground that it is civil dispute and the matter in court, unless the court directs aid or assistance they will not help us.”

¶15

The lower Court by the order under revision, has ordered the Police aid by directing the Station House Officer, Pedda Pappur Police Station, to give necessary aid to the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property.

¶16

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the order of the lower Court suffers from patent error as there was no whisper in the application filed by the respondents that the former is entering the petition schedule property and trying to remove the MN wall for opening a passage. He submitted that the temporary injunction does not restrain the petitioner from keeping the bullock carts, agricultural implements etc., and that the same is confined only to entering the petition schedule property for removal of MN wall and opening a

¶17

passage.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has opposed the above submissions and sought to support the order of the lower Court.

¶19

The result para of the order of injunction dated 13-62011 in I.A.No.139/2011 reads as under :

¶20

“In the result, the petition is allowed, restraining the respondent, his men and agents from entering into the petition schedule property from removing the MN wall and opening passage into the petition schedule as shown in the plaint plan, by way of interim injunction till disposal of the suit. However, both parties do bear their own costs.”

¶21

From the above extracted portion of the order, I find some mistake in the third line thereof, wherein the word “from” was used. However, in the order under the revision, the learned Senior Civil Judge has understood the said order in a correct way wherein he has stated with reference to the same as under:

¶22

“…After hearing both the counsel, I.A.No.137/2011 was allowed on 13-6-2011, restraining the respondent from entering into the petition schedule property by removing the MN wall and opening passage into the petition schedule as shown in the plaint plan…”

¶23

The true purport of the order of injunction is to restrain the petitioner from entering the petition schedule property by removing the MN wall and opening a passage into the petition schedule property. However, there is no whisper by

¶24

the respondents that the petitioner tried to remove the MN wall and open a passage into the petition schedule property. Unless a specific allegation in this regard is made and substantiated, the respondents are not entitled to the Police aid. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of the lower Court suffers from non-application of mind.

¶25

For the above mentioned reasons, the order under the revision is set-aside. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from seeking appropriate relief against the petitioner if the latter attempts to open/opened the passage by removing the MN wall and enter the petition schedule property.

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, CRPMP No.3232 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶28

Date : 11-10-2012 AM

Gutha Narsaiah v. Nallani Pedavemgulappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gutha Narsaiah v. Nallani Pedavemgulappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Timma Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Tahsildar

Edara Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Chellaboyina Diwakara Rao, Vs Nuni Ramesh Babu (Died)

C. Jhansi Laxmi Vs Kothapalli Venkatappa Naidu

Zainab Najafali Khan, Vs Tathima Mirza