No police Aid as the injunction orders are misused = In the instant case, the temporary injunction was obtained by the revision petitioner in respect of the vacant site and thereafter they constructed a small room in a portion of the schedule mentioned site. The allegation against the respondents is that after construction of the said structure, they trespassed into the property violating the orders of injunction and dismantled the said structure. The police protection was not in fact sought to protect the vacant site in respect of which the injunction order was granted. The said structure was raised by the petitioner only after obtaining the order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. No permission was obtained from the Court to raise the structure.

REPORTED IN judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=8743
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO        

C.R.P.No.931 OF 2011  

27-09-2011 

Smt Shamsunnisa Begum    
                        
J.R.Ladaram and others 

Counsel for appellant:  Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy
                                
Counsel for respondents : Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh

? Cases referred:
1 AIR 1971 AP 53 
2 2006(4)ALT 660 
3 2010(2) ALD 41 (DB) 

ORDER:  

        This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 03.12.2010
passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.1121 of 2010 in
O.S.No.462 of 2003. 

2.      I have heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents. 

3.      The petitioner in a suit filed by her for permanent injunction obtained
order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit I.A.No.1958 of 2003
and in the appeal filed there-against in C.M.A.No.15 of 2006, the appellate
Court confirmed the order dated 07.09.2003 passed by the trial Court.
Subsequently, it is said that the respondents trespassed into the part of the
schedule mentioned land and caused damage to certain constructions raised by the 
petitioner therein after obtaining temporary injunction.  Under these
circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 CPC to grant
police aid for implementing the orders of the temporary injunction passed in
favour of the petitioner by the trial Court pending disposal of the suit which
is confirmed by the appellate Court in the civil miscellaneous appeal.

4.      The earned trial Court having gone through the facts of the case
elaborately and examining the circumstances in which the petitioner seeking
police aid came to be filed, dismissed the same on the ground that the
petitioners are protracting the trial of the suit when the defendants are ready
to proceed with the trial and expressed the view that the plaintiff can as well
invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court by filing proper application under
Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC for breach of injunction committed by the respondents.
Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

5.      The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon a
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in RAYAPATI AUDEMMA v POTHINENI     
NARASIMHAM1 wherein it is held as follows:  
"There being no express provision in the Code for the grant of police aid, the
Court can grant aid under its inherent powers and that Order 39 Rule 2(3) does
not deal with implementation but with punishment for disobedience and therefore,
the order can be implemented under Article 226 of the Constitution."

6.      The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of the learned Single
Judge in NEETHA CHINTAWAR AND ANOTHER v BODUGAM GOPI2 wherein the learned single             
judge held as follows:
"Refusal to grant police protection amounts to practically rendering the order
of temporary injunction ineffective and therefore, the Court can grant police
aid by exercising its power under Section 151 CPC even though the party applying
for police aid can institute proceedings under Rule 2(A) of Order 39 CPC for
breach of temporary injunction."

7.      On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
relied upon a decision in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI AND OTHERS v PARCHURI KOTESHWARA                 
RAO AND OTHERS3 wherein the Division Bench of this Court deprecated the practice   
of granting police aid for implementation for mere asking and issued certain
guidelines in the matter of granting police aid by the Courts.  The legal
position as stated by the Division Bench on the issue of granting police aid to
implement the orders granting temporary injunction or any other temporary relief
is that the discretion entirely rests with the Court in exercising its
jurisdiction.  Whenever an application seeking for police aid is granted, it is
not obligatory on the part of the Court to grant police aid.  The Court can
grant police aid exercising its discretion if the situation warrants, such an
exercise of power by the Court, the police have to discharge several important
functions in performance of their duty.  Normally, the indulgence of the police
in civil disputes shall be avoided and only in exceptional situations, the
assistance of the police can be cited and granted when the situation goes out of
the control of the parties and it cannot be remedied by merely resorting to the
civil remedies available to the parties. Whenever the party, in whose favour the
order granting temporary injunction is not able to prevent the invasion of the
opposite party, the police aid cannot be granted in a routine manner and it can
be only granted in exceptional circumstances warranting such an exercise of
power by the Court.

8.      In the instant case, the temporary injunction was obtained by the revision
petitioner in respect of the vacant site and thereafter they constructed a small
room in a portion of the schedule mentioned site.  The allegation against the
respondents is that after construction of the said structure, they trespassed
into the property violating the orders of injunction and dismantled the said
structure.  The police protection was not in fact sought to protect the vacant
site in respect of which the injunction order was granted.  The said structure
was raised by the petitioner only after obtaining the order of temporary
injunction pending disposal of the suit.  No permission was obtained from the
Court to raise the structure.

9.      In any event, the learned trial Court examined the entire situation having
regard to the circumstances of the case and refused to grant police aid.  When
the Court after exercising discretionary power refused to invoke the inherent
powers conferred on it, it cannot be said that any error of jurisdiction is
committed by the Court and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order
dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in
I.A.No.1121 of 2010 in O.S.No.462 of 2003, the revision petition is liable to be
dismissed. 

6.      For all the reasons mentioned above, there are no valid grounds to
interfere with the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.1121 of 2010 in O.S.No.462 of 2003. The revision
petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed.  There shall be no order as
to costs.
        
_________________   
R. KANTHA RAO, J   
Date: 27.09.2011

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.