This strict single-paragraph order allowed a civil revision petition against an order denying police aid. The court relied on the existence of a forceful injunction and the respondent's failure to specifically deny the petitioner's allegations of obstruction to grant relief.
The impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.56 of 2012 is allowed for police aid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3118 of 2012
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.03.2012, passed in I.A.No.56 of 2012 in O.S.No.209 of 2011 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.209 of 2011. She also filed I.A.No.418 of 2011 seeking interim injunction order. It is not in dispute that the lower Court granted injunction order on 16.12.2011 and the said injunction order is still in force. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.56 of 2012 seeking police aid, alleging that the respondent and their men are trying to obstruct the agricultural operations. She further stated that on 28.01.2012, she gave a police report to the Station House Officer, Manubolu Police Station, regarding the illegal acts of the respondent and their men. The respondent filed counter. There is a general denial, but there is no specific denial of the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent and their men are trying to obstruct the agricultural operations of the petitioner. Similarly, there is no denial of the averment of the petitioner that she lodged a police complaint on 28.01.2012. It appears that the injunction is granted only for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. The respondent claims that he has purchased Ac.0.70 cents of land under an agreement of sale dated 12.10.1999. The fact remains that the petitioner’s claim is only for Ac.0.50 cents of land.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title. The question whether the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title if raised, has to be considered by the trial Court at the time of disposal of the suit.
Admittedly, the injunction order is in force, and no appeal is filed
against the same. As long as the injunction is in force, the petitioner is entitled for police aid more particularly when the respondent has not denied the specific allegations of the petitioner that the respondent and their men are trying to obstruct the agricultural operations of the petitioner and that she lodged a police complaint on 28.01.2012.
In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.56 of 2012 filed by the petitioner herein stands allowed as prayed for. No costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.
______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J
Date: 08.11.2013 ska
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to police aid in view of the injunction order and lack of specific denial by the respondent.
Whether the civil revision has to be allowed to permit the petition to obtain police aid as prayed for.
Petitioner
Respondent
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
