APHC010063662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 342/2025 Between: Karri Roja Ramani ...PETITIONER AND Jannada Appa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P LAKSHMANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.No.104 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Proh & Excise Court, Srikakulam. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.36 of 2022 against the defendants for a perpetual injunction. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.11 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction. 3. The respondents filed a counter and opposed I.A.No.11 of 2022. The trial Court by order dated 08.12.2022 allowed I.A.No.11 of 2022 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the respondent, restraining him from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 4. Thereafter, since the respondent/defendant, is still interfering with the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff, despite the injunction order, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.104 of 2023 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to grant Police aid, for implementing the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2022. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was contended that despite the injunction granted, the defendant is openly proclaiming that he will occupy the schedule land. The Police are not taking any action despite the complaint. 6. No counter was filed by the respondent/defendant, though sufficient opportunity was provided. 7. The trial court, by the order dated 31.07.2024, under revision, dismissed the application. 8. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court got confused between Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC with the application filed under Section 151 of CPC for the grant of police aid to implement the injunction. He would also submit that no appeal was filed against the order of the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the respondent/defendant has been in possession of the property, and by misrepresenting the facts, the petitioner/plaintiff got an injunction. 11. When this Court posed a question regarding the filing of appeal, if any, against the injunction order dated 08.12.2022, in I.A.No.11 of 2022, learned counsel submitted that no appeal was filed. 12. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.No.104 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2022 on the file of learned III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Prohibition & Excise Court, Srikakulam, suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 13. As seen from the narration supra and material available on record, there is no dispute that the trial Court granted a temporary injunction on 08.12.2022 in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.104 of 2023 for the grant of Police aid. 14. As seen from the order under revision, the trial Court proceeded on the premise that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove that the respondent/defendant violated the injunction. The trial Court, infact, extracted Order XXXIX Rule 2-A and proceeded in those lines. The trial Court also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad1, wherein the Apex Court considered Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court got confused regarding the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC i.e. the consequences of disobeying and breach of injunction, and scope of the application under Section 151 of CPC for grant of Police aid to implement the order of injunction. 16. In Satyanarayana Tiwari vs. SHO P.S. Santhoshnagar Hyderabad and others 2, the learned Division Bench of composite High Court while holding that the High Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to 1 2009 (5) SCC 665 2 1982 ALT 161 DB all the authorities including the Police within the State to enforce the orders of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High Court in a civil revision petition and maintain the Rule of Law, observed as under: “… The only limitations on the wide powers conferred on the High Court and exercisable by it in the matter of issuing writs are (1) that the power of the Court is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and (2) that the person or authority to whom the writ is issued, is within the territories over which the respective High Courts exercise jurisdiction. None of these limitations come in the way of the High Court issuing appropriate directions to further secure the right determined and recognized by the civil court. The power which a Civil Court has under Sec. 151 C.P.C. the High Court has in much larger measure under Article 226 of the Constitution. …” 17. The learned Division Bench also considered Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC and eventually allowed the intra-court appeal, directing the Police authorities to enforce the injunction. 18. In Gampala Anthaiah and others v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy3, learned Single Judge of composite High Court, after careful analysis of the case law on the subject, observed as under at para No.20: “So a party, who obtained temporary injunction orders, and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator 3 2014 (2) ALD 281 for contempt of Court, but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151 of CPC from the civil Court. …” 19. …” 19. Learned Single Judge while considering the division bench judgment Polavarapu Nagamani and others v. Parchuri Koteswara Rao and others4, held that “insofar as it held that if an application is filed by a person obtaining an 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, but, if he alleges that the said order has been violated, an application for Police protection would not lie”, is per incuriam, since the division bench failed to consider the judgments of Apex Court. 20. This Court in Morusu Sreeramulu Reddy v. Kareppagari Eswaraiah5 considered the grant of police aid in implementing the temporary injunction and eventually allowed the civil revision petition, when the trial court failed to grant police aid. 21. In this case at hand, the trial court misunderstood the prayer sought by the petitioner and proceeded, as if the application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC and dismissed the I.A. In fact, as noted supra, against the order of temporary injunction, no appeal has been filed by the 4 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB) 5 2023(1) ALT 511 respondent/defendant, and the said order is in force. The Court must see to it that the temporary injunction shall be implemented. 22. Given the discussion supra, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.No.104 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2022 on the file of learned III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Proh & Excise Court, Srikakulam. The I.A.No.104 of 2023 in O.S.No.36 of 2022 is allowed, granting Police aid for implementation of the order of injunction dated 08.12.2022. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 10.04.2025 IKN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 342/2025 Date: 10.04.2025 IKN