Disposed

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah v. Moutam Ravi

Telangana HC24 Jan 2024CRP/1329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court adjudicated a revision petition challenging a trial court's dismissal of an interlocutory application seeking police protection to enforce an injunction. The trial court had refused aid due to lack of evidence, but the High Court directed the trial court to consider the petition independently without requiring evidentiary proof of the alleged interference, as the duty

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed; trial court directed to consider fresh petition if subsequent interference occurs.

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah Vs Moutam Ravi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH^DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 1329 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Atticle 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia, aggrieved by the} order dated 02-02-2023^passed in^{lA No. 46 of 2020in O.S. No. 2112018on the} file of court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at^Huzurabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah, S/o.^{Venkataiah, aged about76 years,} _Occ-^Retd Emplo!6e, Rl/o. Molangoor Village Shankarapatnam^{Mandal,Karimnagar} District

¶9

..Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

Moutam Ravi, S/o. Kanukaiah, Aged about^{50 years, Occ-Agriculture,Rl/o} Near Police Station, Veenavanka Village^{and Mandal, Karimnagar District}

¶12

...RespondenUDefendant

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} grant police aid by directing the SHO, Veenavanka PS^{to give police protection to} the petitioner for implementation^{of injunction order passedin lA No.6712O18in} OS no. 21 of 2O18, dated 17.12.2018,^{pendingdisposal of mainCRP.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.^{AJAY KUMARMADISETW}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: None^Appeared

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.^SUJANA

¶19

CTVIL REVISI ON PETITION No.1329^{OF 2023}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition is hled by the^{revision petitioner} aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2023^{passed in I.A.No.46 of} 2O2O in O.S.No.21 of 2O18 by the Principal Junior^{Civil Judge at} Huzurabad.

¶22

I.A.No.46 of 2O2O is filed under Section^{151 of CPC by the} petitioner/ plaintiff praying the Court to direct the^SHO, Veenavanka, to give police aid to the^{petitioner/plaintiff for} implementation of injunction order in I.A.No.67^{of 2018 to protect} the rights of the petitioner/^plaintiff.

¶23

The contention of the^{petitioner/ plaintiff} in^{I.A.No.46 of} 2O2O is that the main suit i.e., O.S.No.21^{of 2O18 is hled by the} petitioner/ plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction^against respondent/defendant in respect of the suit^{scheduleproperty.} Along with the suit, the^{petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an} I.A.No.67 of 2018 to grant temporary injunction to^{restrain the} respondent/defendant from interfering with the^petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the suit^{schedule property. The} trial Court^{granted interiminjunction on 17.12.2018in I.A'No.67}

sKs,l cRP L329 2023

of 2018. Inspite of the injunction order granted by the tridl Court in I.A.No.67 of 2018 the respondent/ defendant on 2O.Il.2Ol9 trespassed into the petitioner/ plaintiff land in the night hours with the help of harvester and had cut away the paddy crop to an extent of Ac.l-O2 gts., and when the^petitioner/ plaintiff^cameto know, he along with Sripathi Papanna, went to the suit land and resisted, but the respondent/defendant abused him in^filthy language and committed theft of^paddy about 40 bags,^{for which} the pe titioner/ plaintiff reported the matter to Veenavanka^police station to take suitable action against the respondent/defendant however, they refused to take action against him. As^the respondent/defendant is taking law into his hands, the petitioner/ plaintiff hled the I.A.No.46 of 2O2O and prayed the Court to grant police aid to him.

¶28

The respondent/defendant frled counter resisting the petition and contended that he preferred CMA.No. 1 of 2019 before Senior Civil Judge's Court, Huzurabad in which he filed an IA to stay the execution of order and decree d.ated 17.12.2018^{passed in} I.A.No.67 of 2Ol8 and the same is pending for disposal and during the pendency of CMA, the police aid petition is not maintainable. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

sKs,l cRP-1329_2023

After hearing both sides and^{considering the averments} made in the petition and in the^{counter afl-rdavit,the trial Court} refused to grant the police aid stating that no^evidencewas adduced by the^pe titioner/ plaintiff in support of^{the alleged} interference by way of trespass into the suit^{schedule propertyand} theft of 40 bags of^paddy crop by respondent/defendant.^{As such,} the trial Court dismissed the^petition. Aggrieved^{by the same, the} present CRP is filed by the revision petitioner.

¶33

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned^{counselfor the} revision petitioner and there is no representation^{on behalf of the} respondent/ defendant.

¶34

Learned counsel for the revision^{petitioner/ plaintiff submits} that even after the trial Court^granted the^{injunction order in} I.A.No.67 of 2018 in favour of the^{petitioner/plaintiff,the} respondent/defendant interfered with' the^possession of^the property and he came to property with a harvester^{and committed} theft of 40 bags of^paddy crop.^{Therefore,the revisionpetitioner} filed police protection^petition i.e.,^{I.A.No.46 of 2O2OunderSection} 151 CPC, but the trial Court failed to consider^{the same and} dismissed the said I.A. stating that no evidence is^{placedon record} of the alleged trespass and theft. Therefore, the revision^petitioner

¶35

¶36

5X5,' €R? 1329 m2l

¶37

prayed this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court and allow the revision petition.

¶38

Having gone through the submissions of learned counsel^for the revision petitioner and the material^placed on^record,the incident has occurred on 20.71.2019 and the^{petitioner hledan} interlocutory application by way of LA.No.46^{of 2O2Oand the trial} Court dismissed the petition stating that no^{documents were} submitted by the^pe titioner/ plaintiff to^{prove that 40 bags of} paddy was stolen by the respondent/defendant.^However,no evidence is required for the police^{protectionpetition,} it^{is only to} implement the injunction order the^police aid is^{to be grantedand} the trial Court failed to identifr the same.^When the^{order is} passed by the Court, the party has to enjoy the fruits of^{the said} order. But when there is an interference inspite of the order^{of the} Court, it has to be protected and the trial Court erredⁱⁿ dismissing the petition. Therefore, the revision^{petitioner/plaintiff} herein is directed to hle a fresh petition if there is a subsequent interference by the respondent/defendant into the suit^{property. If} it is hled, the trial Court is directed to consider the same^basingon the averments of the petition independently^withoutbeing influenced by the observations made in this^order.

_-J

svs,., cRP 1329 2023

With the above observations the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/. AV.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ?

¶45

To,

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad 3. P',l5 33 [oo.q:"^{o'o" x u r',ne n jrano isi#?] ii,o"","} rop^u cl PS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410112024

ORDER

I \e STATG o
.I 1<br>q i,
7.
of,o $ 1 tEB 2[24 ..i.
{.
,t.
* DEi;1:,.,t ci ,; .?.

¶53

GRP.No.1329 of 2023

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE^{CIVILREVISION PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

@
$A
r,}<br><br>

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah v. Moutam Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah v. Moutam Ravi

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

Kankanala Laxmi Vs Koudagani Purnachander and 12 others

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others Vs Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others

Sri.B.Krishna Vs Sri.Ranga Sudhakar

Chunchu Ramanjali Vs Rasamalla Saraiah

Smt. P. Sita Maha Lakshmi Vs E.V Manohar Rao

NavatheHemalatha Vs K.Rukmini and 6others