IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2123 of 2014 Between:
Ogulaveni Sudarshan, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Oded of Mutharam Mandal, Karimnagar District.
.. Petitioner AND Sheelam Tirupati, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Odded of Mutharam Mandal, Karimnagar District & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2123 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A.No.95 of 2013 and in I.A.No.376 of 2010 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.129 of 2010. The petitioner filed I.A.No.95 of 2013 praying to grant police protection against unlawful interference by the defendants in the suit in violation of orders of trial Court in I.A.No.376 of 2010. On detail consideration of the matter, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition by order, dated 01.10.2013. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed.
2. By order, dated 02.12.2010, made in I.A.No.376 of 2010, the trial Court granted an order of status quo with reference to the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed the above I.A. contending that in spite of an order of status quo, the respondents-defendants are interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial Court found that earlier the petitioner foisted a false criminal case under Section 379 IPC against some of the respondents in the I.A., the police having investigated, closed the complaint as false complaint. A writ petition bearing W.P.No.2229 of 2013 is instituted alleging that the police, Mutharam Mandal, were aiding and abetting the respondents in the I.A. and not allowing the petitioner to enjoy the property. This writ petition was closed. Learned trial Judge also noticed that even though I.A.No.376 of 2010 was coming up for hearing since the year 2010, arguments are not advanced and the matter underwent several adjournments.
3. Having regard to the principle of law on the subject of granting police protection in the matters where an order of status quo is granted by the Court, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and the I.A. was dismissed.
4. The principle of law is well-settled on the issue of providing police protection. As held by this Court in JAGANNATH REDDY Vs. L. LAXMI DEVI Smt. [1998 (1) ALD 453], a relief of police protection cannot be granted in exercise of power vested in Court under Section 151 CPC as a matter of course. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the Court is intended to come to the aid of a person who is genuinely prosecuting the litigation and has no other efficacious remedy available to him. In the instant case, as observed by the trial Court, it is not established as to who is in possession and enjoyment and, therefore, by merely claiming that an order of status quo is granted, it would not automatically establish that the petitioner was in possession and that the respondents have violated the order of status quo and, therefore, entitled to police protection. The learned trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion. No new facts are brought to the notice of this Court warranting an order to grant police protection. I, therefore, see no error in the decision. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to request the trial Court for early disposal of I.A.No.376 of 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 6th August, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2123 of 2014 Date: 6th August, 2014