HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1644 of 2014 Date : 27-8-2014 Between:
Mohd. Yousuf ..
Petitioner And Mohd. Babu Mia ..
Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri G. Gautam Krishna for Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar Counsel for respondent : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for Sri K. Venkata Reddy The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 21-1-2014 in I.A.No.959 of 2013 in I.A.No.2186 of 2011 in O.S.No.2031 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
The petitioner filed O.S.No.2031/2011 for perpetual injunction in respect of plot No.66 (4-20) in Sy.No.80, admeasuring 133 sq. yards situated at New Prem Nagar, Hafeezpet, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Along with the suit, he has also filed I.A.No.2186 for temporary injunction. The lower Court, by order dated 17-7- 2013 held that plot No.66 and property bearing H.No.4-20 are different from each other and that the said house does not belong to the petitioner. On the said finding, the lower Court has granted injunction in I.A.No.2186 of 2011 in respect of plot No.66 and made it clear that the said injunction does not relate to the petitioner’s house.
The petitioner filed I.A.No.959 of 2013 under Section 151 CPC for Police aid in respect of plot No.66. The lower Court purportedly relying upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani Vs. Parchuri Koteswara Rao[1] held that if an order of injunction is violated, the aggrieved party can only file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and that no application for police aid can be granted. However, in Yarlagunta
[2]
Bhaskar Rao Vs. Bommaji Danam a learned single Judge of this Court on a thorough consideration of the case law, which includes the Judgments of the Supreme Court in
[3]
Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi a n d P.R.
Muralidharan and others Vs. Swamy Dharmananda
[4]
Theertha Padar and others , held that the Judgment in Polavarapu Nagamani (1-supra) i s per incuriam. The learned Counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded this legal position. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court on the maintainability of the application is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set-aside.
In its order, the lower Court has also observed that sworn affidavit filed by the petitioner is totally silent as to the date and the manner of interference and that the petitioner has also not filed the alleged police complaint. The lower Court has accordingly held that based on the vague and generic allegations of interference, no police aid can be granted.
The learned Counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that to the extent of plot No.66, his client is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property and that in the guise of enjoying his property in plot No.66, the petitioner is illegally trying to interfere with the house bearing No.4-20. The learned Counsel fairly submitted that so long as the petitioner does not interfere with the respondent’s possession of H.No.4-20, the latter will not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of plot No.66 in respect of which alone injunction is granted by the lower Court.
The above submissions of the learned Counsel are placed on record and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.2317 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-8-2014 AM
[1] 2010(2) ALD 41 (DB) = 2010(6) ALT 92 (DB)
[2] 2014(2) ALT 319
[3] 2007(7) SCJ 798 = (2007) 12 SCC 201
[4] (2006) 4 SCC 501