APHC010057932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 301/2022 Between: Akula Venkateswarlu, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bandi Chenchu Naidu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.301 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 08.11.2021 in I.A.No.272 of 2021 in I.A.No.132 of 2020 in O.S.No.60 of 2020 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District. 2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. The suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property. As per the plaint, the Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are husband and wife and Defendant Nos.2 and 4 are their children. The plaint schedule property is an ancestral property and Defendants had offered to sell the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff for the benefit of joint family and the bargain was settled for a valid consideration of Rs.3,12,000/-. Accordingly, the entire sale consideration was paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff and a registered Sale Deed dated 23.02.2017 was executed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff. The possession of the schedule property was also delivered under the registered Sale Deed. 3. It was further contended in the plaint that in recognition of right, title and possession, the revenue authorities mutated the name of the Plaintiff in the revenue records also. As the Petitioners/Defendants were threatening to disturb the possession of the Respondent/Plaintiff and they had filed O.S.No.29 of 2020 seeking for cancellation of registered Sale Deed dated 23.02.2017, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the present suit. Along with the suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed an application seeking temporary injunction vide I.A.No.132 of 2020. On 3 contest, the said application was allowed by the trial Court on 02.11.2020. In spite of the order of the trial Court, there were threats of dispossession of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Hence, the Respondent/ Plaintiff filed I.A.No.272 of 2021 seeking for police aid for implementation of the orders passed in I.A.No.132 of 2020 on 02.11.2020. The trial Court on consideration allowed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the police aid could not have been granted in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and others vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others1. It was also contended that the Petitioner had filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2020 before the Senior Civil Judge under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC questioning the injunction order passed in I.A.No.132 of 2020 and the trial Court erred in granting police aid in the face of the appeal pending before the District Appellate Court. 6. The counsel for the Respondent contended that the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioners in Bijiga Papa Rao and others vs. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao2 where under this Court had granted police aid after referring to the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner. Apart from that the counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff also contends that when the injunction is subsisting as on date, grant of police aid cannot be found fault. 1 2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB) 2 2015 (2) ALT 63 4 7. Having heard the Respective counsel, as it is submitted that the order of injunction was not suspended in the C.M.A filed by the Petitioners and the same is in vogue as on that date, this Court cannot interfere with the enforcement of order of temporary injunction. Therefore, grant of police aid as a consequence of temporary injunction cannot be faulted. 8. The Judgment relied on by the counsel for the Petitioners was considered in Bijiga Papa Rao and others’ case (2 supra) after referring case law and held that in appropriate cases police aid can be granted by the Courts in exercise of power under Section 151 CPC. In fact, the Hon’ble Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani and others’ case (1 supra) held that police protection can be granted in appropriate cases. The paragraph 24 (iii) thereof is extracted below:- “If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty rights of the opposite party.” 9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any error in the order of the trial Court. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 27.01.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.301 of 2022 Date: 27.01.2025 IS