HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.250 of 2014 Between:
Yanamadal Prabhavathi and another . PETITIONERS And Mulpuri Rama Rao . RESPONDENT The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.250 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.08.2013 passed in I.A.No.279/2013 in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.67/2012 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs.
The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the petition under Section 151 CPC seeking police aid to implement the temporary injunction order.
The learned trial Court after making enquiry into the interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction, granted temporary injunction on merits. It is submitted by the petitioners before the learned trial Court that when the petitioners were ploughing the schedule land with tractor, the respondent came and obstructed the agricultural operations, therefore, the petitioners sought police aid to implement the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court pending disposal of the suit. The learned trial Court referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani Vs Farachuri Koteswara Rao’s case took the view that except mere allegation that obstruction was caused at the time of ploughing, no particulars regarding the incident have been furnished and accordingly held that the petitioners failed to establish the alleged breach by the standard prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners failed to satisfy the Court regarding facts concerning breach of injunction and accordingly declined to grant police aid.
I do not find any error committed by the trial Court in dealing with the application seeking police aid warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 05.09.2014 Dsr