Allowed

Smt. Chintala Vimala, (died ) v. Bommena Rajubai

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025CRP/766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree holders of a decreed perpetual injunction sought police aid via an application during execution; the trial court dismissed it citing lack of evidence. The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside that order and directing the trial court to instruct the SHO to provide police aid against interference.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal order set aside; trial court directed to give directions to SHO to provide police aid in case of interference; no costs; pending misc petitions closed

Smt. Chintala Vimala, (died ) Vs Bommena Rajubai — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVI SION PETITION No: 766 ol 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 1 15 of c p.c against the order dated os-12-2o23 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2022 in E.p.No.51 ol 2022 in o.S.No.50 of 2009 on the fite of the court of the Additional Junior civil Judge cum Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class( Juvenile Court) at Bhupalapally.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. smt. chintala Vimara, (died) wo. Kishan Reddy, Aged about.40 vears. occ. Housenord r-(/o. Adhrvarampet village, Ramagiri Mandal, peddap-alli District. Rep by legal representative i.e, pet.NIo.3

¶10

Smt. Somireddy Premalatha, Wo Laxma Reddy, Aged about. 50 years, Occ: Househord R/o. Adhivarampet viilage, Ramagiri Man?ar, peddaiaill bi.[i"t^--

¶11

3 chintala kishan reddy, S/oRam Reddy, Aged about 57 years, occ: Business Kio. Adnrvarampet vtllage, Ramagiri Mandal, peddapalli District.

¶12

...Revision Petitioner/

¶13

Decree holders in E.P.No.S,ll2O22 . in O.S.No.S0/2009

¶14

AND

¶15

1 pgmmgna Rajubai,.Wo Lachireddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. .cangaram X Roads, Regulagudem Villagi:, Kataram Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District.^-

¶16

2 f9lnm,gna^{Suryanarayana,.S/o. Lachireddy, Aged about. 48 years, Occ:} 19i,_.-rllr1g,^{ruo. Gangaram X Roads, RegutagudemVillage, Kataram lviandat,} Jayasnankar tshupalapally District.

¶17

Bomm.ana Venkanna, S/o..- Lachireldy, Aged about. 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gangaram X Roads, Reluragldem viilage, xita?im rrrranoi, Jayashankar Bhupala-pally District

¶18

4 P:ll,?lq $ajababu,^S/o _ ^Lachireddy,^{Aged about 40 years, Occ:} f9l,_ylrlpt^{R/o. cangaram X Roads, Regutagudem Viltage,Kataram Mandat,} Jayasnankar tshupalapally District.

¶19

Bommana Thrrupathi Reddy, S/o. Lachireddy, Aged about. 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gangaram X Roads, Regulagudem Village, Kataram Arlandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District.

¶20

... Res ponde nts/J udgment-Debtors ln E.P.No.S1 ot 2022 in O.S.No.50/2009

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc,u rt may be pleised to grant'execution of order passed in E.A. No 1 of 2022 in t:.P No.51 of 2022 in O.S. No. 50 of 2009, dated. 05-'12-2023, on the file of the Addt. Junior Civit Judge Cum Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Clas,s (Juvenile Court) at Bhupalapally, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Khammam Srinivas

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Puli Ashok Kumar

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICEK. SUJANA}

¶27

CTVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNo.766 of2O24}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Civil^{RevisionPetitionis hled aggrieved by the} order dated^{05.12.2023 passed inE A'No'Ol of 2022 in} E.P.No.SI of^{2022 by the learned AdditionatJuniorCivil} Judge-cum-Additional^{JudicialMagistrate ofFirstClass} (Juvenile Court),^BhuPalPallY'

¶30

2.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethatpetitionersfiled O.S.No.SO^{of 2OO9 for grant of perpetualinjunction andto} restrain the^{defendantsfrom interfering with theirpossession} of agricultural^{land in Sy'No'62 admeasuringAc'6'22 guntas} and Sy.No.63/2^{admeasuringAc 5 18 guntas of Kondampet} Village, Malhar^{Rao Mandal' The court below decreed the suit} in favor of the^{petitioners on03'01'2O18'Thereafter'} petitioners hled^{E.P-No.S I of 2022 in O'S'No'SO of 20O9 under} Order XXI, Rule^{32(1), 37 read with 43 of Code of Civil} Procedure,1908(forshort'CP'CJ'Duringpendencyofthe said E.P.,^{petitioners frledE'A'No'1 of 2022 seekingPolice} protection to^{enforcethe decreeof the trial Court' Taking}

tl rl

sKs,J C.R-I'.No.'166 of 2024

¶35

advantage of the old age and^{innocence,rvhenthe} respondents tricd to interfere^{with the physical possessionof} the property, pe Litioners filed^{complaint before the Station} House Officer, Koyryur.^{As the said complaint was not acted} upon, petitioners filed E.P.^{Meanwhile,during pendency,} petitioners arc ttnder apprehension^{that respondents may cut} and carry away the crop^{which is ready for harvr:sting. If} police protectior-r is not^{granted,they will be pur- to great} hardship whicl-r leads to multiplicity^{of proceedings}

¶36

The respondents therein^{have not filed ary counter.} The trial Court after perusing the^{record observed that the} petitioners relicd on their own affidavit^{only and re,luested for} police protection for the interference^{caused by rr:s;pondcnts} over the suit schedule property,^{withoutany evidr:nce. As} such, dismissed the said E.A. Aggrieved by the^{surid order,} this revision petition is filed.

¶37

Heard Sri Khammam Srinivas, learnecl counsel appearing on bctralf of the^petitioners as^well as Sri Puli Ashok Kumerr, Iearnc'd counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶38

(

¶39

¶40

SKS,J C.R-P.No.766 ol2024

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated O5.L2.2O23 in E.A.No. I of 2022, contravenes the law ald probabilities of the case, potentially causing a grave miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that despite adjudication of the suit, the respondents/judgment debtors are making illegal constructions, violating the order of the Court and that the Court below failed to understand the facts, notably that respondent Nos.2 to S/judgment debtors 2 to 5 are interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners of their land in Sy.No.63/2, Kondampet village, in contravention of the perpetual injunction order obtained by the petitioners in O.S No.50 of 2OO9 on O3.O1.2O18.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Court below erred in dismissing E.A.No. I of 2022 due to insufl-rcient evidence, despite police complaints and registratioi of crimes i.e., Crime Nos.42, 118, 119 and 129 of 2022, demonstrating the continuous disobedience and harassment of the respondents. He further submitted that failure to implement the order would result in the petitioners losing their rights due to the illegal constructions of the respondents and that the Court below overlooked crucial facts

¶43

¶44

SI(s,J C.Rl,.I{o.766 of 2024

¶45

¶46

and evidencc presented by the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the Court belorv by alL ru'ing t his , rvil revision petition.

¶47

On thc other hand, learned counsel appezrr,ng on behalf of the respondents hled counter affidavit rl:nying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that thc claim of petitioners that they wor.rld lose their rights o[ their lancl in Survey No.63/2, if the order in E.A.No.1 of^'2022 is not irnplemented, is false, as responde nts are not constructing in their land. The decree specihed 51 . ),1os.62 and 63/2 admeasuring Ac.6.22 guntas and Ac.S,. 18 guntas respectively zrre having common boundaries, r-otaling to Ac.12.0O guntas and the petitioners failed to nre:ntion how much land thc'y are having in Ac.l2.OO guntas but simply mentioned survey numbers. A survey was conducted on Ol.lI.2OO2, bv the Deputy Surveyor, fixing the boundaries, and the documcnts were also filed to that effect.

¶48

Learned r:ounsel for the respondents further submitted that petitioners lailed to adduce evidence before (lourt below and did not disclose death of petitioner No.1 prior to Decr-'mber 2O22.^'lhe Court below noted the failure of

sr(s,J C.RP.No.766 of²⁰²⁴

¶53

¶54

petitioners in adducing evidence,^{obserwing that they did not} approach the Court with^{clean hands. Therefore, there is no} illegality in the order and^{the Court belowhas rightlypassed} the order. Hence,^{prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision} petition.

¶55

g. In the light of the submissions^{made by both the} learned counsel and a^{perusal of the materialavailableon} record, the suit is decreed^{in favour of revision petitioners} herein and after obtaining^{decree,petitioners[iled Execution} Petition which is^{pending before the trial Court'During} pendency of the said E.P,^{as the respondentsare interfering} with the possession of the^{petitioners, they hled the saidE'A'}

¶56

The contention of^{learned counsel lor the respondents is} that respondents^{are in possessionof property and there are} documents in their favour-^{Whether, 'respondents are having} documents or^{whether they are in possessionof the property} or not has to be decided^{by the trial Court' The criminalcase} filed by the^{petitioners againstthe respondents shows that} respondents are interfering^{with the propert5zof petitioners} even after the^{injunctionorder, as such, to enjoy the fruitsof} decree, it is the^{duty of the Court to see that the decree is}

¶57

¶58

SKS,J C.R-P No.766 of 2024

¶59

¶60

{

¶61

implemented.^'lhe trial Court referred to the ju.dgment in

¶62

Polavarapu Nagamani and others Vs Parchuri Koteshwara

¶63

Rao and othersl wherein it is observed that poli<:e have no role in civil ad-ludication and the Courts shorrld be very cautious and i,igilant not to introduce police intr:rvention in civil adjudication at the instance of plaintiff. Whr:n the order of the Courl is violated, the aggrieved person has to

¶64

neccssaril-y fik' r.xecu [ion petition or an application seeking attachment and /or arrest of the violator for contr:lnpt of the court order, [hat when an application is filed by the person obtaining ad-inrcrim injunction alieging that there is threat of breach, disobccli<:nce or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, thc Court has power to or-cter police protection. I n the pre sent case, the petition is dismissed stating [hat excr:pt relying on their own _affidavit, no evidence was lead to pr()vc that the respondents have interl'ered with the possession ol pctitioners, whereas the trial CotLrt failed to consider that the pctitioner approached the police lor redressal and tlrcv havc not given aid. The suit for permanent injunction is der:reed observing interference of resporrdent and when E. P., is fi lcd, the Court has to see that decrer: holder to

¶65

'^{(2010) 2 Ar_D 41}

¶66

SKS,J C.R-P.No.766 of 2024

¶67

enjoy the fruits of decree. Further, Order XXI Rule 32 (5) also says that any of the process can be adopted. Considering the circumstances narrated in the affidavit hled by the petitioner, this Civil Revision petition is allowed setting aside theimpugned order of the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to give directions to ttre concerned SHO to give police aid in case of interference. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions,

¶68

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶69

Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,