Telangana High Court
Shanagonda Sampath vs Shanagonda Akhila on 9 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
Between:
Shanagonda Sampath and
another .. Petitioners
Vs.
Shanagonda Akhila and
another .. Respondents
DATE OF COMMON ORDER PASSED: 09.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
% Delivered on: 09-06-2025
Between:
# Shanagonda Sampath and
another .. Petitioners
Vs.
$ Shanagonda Akhila and
Another .. Respondents
! For Petitioners Sri B.Jagadish, learned counsel
^ For Respondents Sri R.Dayakar, learned counsel
<Gist --
> Head Note --
? Cases Referred
1. AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB)
2. AIR 1971 AP 53
3. (2007) 12 SCC 201
4. AIR (1962) SC 327
5. (2006) 4 SCC 501
6. (2010) 2 ALD 41
7. 1998 (1) ALD 453
8. (2010) 2 ALD 732
9. (2005) 3 ALD 772
10. (2015) 2 ALD 171
11. (2015) 2 ALT 59
12. (2014) 2 ALD 281
13. (2013) 2 ALD 626
14. (2009) 3 ALD 692
15. (2013) 6 ALD 104
16. (2014) 2 ALT 319
3
17. (2000) 6 ALD 449
18. (2000) 2 ALT 606
19. (2005) 6 ALT 710
20. (2010) 6 ALD 62
21. (2006) 5 ALD 695
22. AIR 2003 Madras 2019
23. (2011) 11 SCC 275
24. 2017 (1) ALD 503
25. 2024 (6) ALD 696
26. 2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB)
27. 2021 SCC OnLine TS 607
28. 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1148
29. 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2783
30. 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2384
31. AIR 1960 SC 137
32. 2023 (1) ALT 765
33. 1991 (1) ALT 366
34. 2010 (9) SCC 437
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri B.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri R.Dayakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
order dated 28.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.150 of 2022 in I.A.No.172 of
2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at
Karimnagar.
3. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.428 of 2024
against the petitioners herein/defendants for perpetual injunction
restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their possession
over the suit schedule property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.0.12½
guntas in Sy.No.465K belongs to the 1st plaintiff/1st respondent herein
and the land to the extent of 0.02 ½ gutnas in Sy.No.465M/B and
Ac.0.10guntas in Sy.No.465K and in total Ac.0.12½ guntas situated
at Mallapur Village shivar of Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar
District (for short, ‘the subject property’). Along with the said suit,
they have also filed I.A.No.172 of 2021 seeking ad-interim injunction.
Vide order dated 06.09.2021, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge
5
at Karimnagar, granted interim injunction in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners herein/defendants
restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession
of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
4. It is apt to note that the said order dated 06.10.2021 in
I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 is a contest order on
consideration of the counter filed by the petitioners herein/defendants
herein and on hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal vide CMA (SR) No.78
of 2024. It appears there is delay in preferring the said appeal.
Therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1345 of 2024 to condone
the delay in preferring the said appeal and the said Interlocutory
Application is still pending.
5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.150 of 2022 in
I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC
to grant police aid on the following grounds:-
i. Vide order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in
O.S.No.428 of 2021 learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar granted temporary injunction restraining the
6petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
ii. It is a contest order.
iii. No appeal was preferred challenging the said order.
iv. The petitioners herein/defendants and their parents interfering
with the possession of the respondent/plaintiffs over the subject
property and disturbing their possession. Therefore, they have
lodged a complaint with the Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur,
who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021. They have
also furnished a copy of the aforesaid order to the police. They
are not taking action stating that the dispute is civil in nature.
v. By taking advantage of the same, the petitioners/defendants and
their parents perpetrating their illegal activities against the
respondents/plaintiffs by not permitting them to enter into the
suit schedule property for cultivation. Therefore, they sought
police aid.
6. The said application was opposed by the petitioners
herein/defendants contending as follows:-
i. The respondents/plaintiffs created a false story to damage the
reputation of the petitioners/defendants in the village.
7ii. The petitioners/defendants and their parents are doing
cultivation of the said property since thirty (30) years and they
are in possession of the subject property till today.
iii. They are eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land.
iv. As father of the respondents herein/plaintiffs is not taking care
of petitioners/defendants, the parents of the defendants filed a
case vide M.C.No.24 of 2021 against the respondents
herein/plaintiffs father. The respondents/plaintiffs lodged a false
complaint with the Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur who in
turn registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021. Therefore, there are
no merits in the said application and sought to dismiss the same.
7. Vide order dated 28.03.2024, learned I Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar, allowed the said I.A.No.150 of 2022
holding that the petitioners herein/defendants violated the aforesaid
order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021.
The petitioners herein did not file any document in support of their
contentions opposing the said application. The petitioners
herein/defendants cannot violate the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021.
Therefore, respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for police protection.
With the said observations, vide impugned order dated 28.03.2024,
8
learned trial Court allowed I.A.No.150 of 2022 directing the Station
House Officer, Police, LMD Colony, Thimmapur, to provide police
protection to implement the said order dated 06.09.2021 till disposal
of the suit or until further orders.
8. As discussed supra, the order dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172
of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 is a contest order and the same is on
consideration of the pleadings of the parties and on hearing them.
Though the said order is dated 06.09.2021, the petitioners
herein/defendants preferring an appeal only in the year 2024, that too,
along with an application to condone the delay vide I.A.No.1345 of
2021 in CMA (SR) No.978 of 2024. The said application is pending.
9. It is the specific contention of the respondents
herein/plaintiffs that the petitioners herein/defendants along with their
parents interfered with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs
over the suit schedule property and tried to disturb their possession.
Therefore, they have lodged a complaint dated 27.09.2021 with Police
LMD Colony, Thimmapur who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.15
of 2021. They have also filed a copy of the said First Information
Report. If the petitioners herein/defendants aggrieved by the said
order dated 06.09.2021, they have to prefer an appeal. They cannot
9
interfere with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property. It amounts to violation of the said order. To
enforce the said order, the police aid is required.
10. The petitioners filed the present revision contending that the
learned trial Court did not consider the pleadings of the parties in the
present I.A.No.150 of 2022. The petitioners herein are joint
shareholders of the suit schedule property. They are in physical
possession of the same as on the date. They are also cultivating the
said land since last 30 years. Trial Court did not give any reasons
while granting police aid. They have not filed any documents in
support of their case. Though a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021 was
registered on the complaint lodged by respondents/plaintiffs dated
27.09.2021, the police have not initiated any further action. The
contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.No.150 of
2022 lacks the grounds on which the police aid is to be granted. Trial
court missed the crucial point that the affidavit in support of police aid
was on 27.04.2022, but the alleged interference was on 27.09.2021.
Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court allowed the
aforesaid I.A.No.150 of 2022 and granted police aid erroneously.
10
11. Respondents/plaintiffs filed counter contending that on
consideration of the entire aspects including the complaint dated
27.09.2021, Cr.No.15 of 2021 and other aspects, learned trial Court
granted police aid. There is no error in it.
12. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is relevant to note that
the petitioners herein/defendants are restrained by way of an order
dated 06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 by
learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, from
interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the
suit schedule property. In the said order, learned trial Court gave a
specific finding that respondents herein/plaintiffs are in possession of
the subject property and they are entitled for injunction. Learned trial
Court also considered triple point formula while granting temporary
injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they
have to prefer an appeal. Though the said order is dated 06.09.2021,
they have preferred an appeal only in the year 2024 that too, along
with an application to condone delay. The said application is pending.
Therefore, they cannot claim that they are in possession of the
property and they are cultivating the same since last 30 years.
11
Therefore, during subsistence of the said injunction order, the
petitioners herein cannot interfere with the possession of the
respondents herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It
amounts to violation of the said order.
13. Even in the present revision, it is the specific contention of
the petitioners herein/defendants that they are joint shareholders of the
suit schedule property, they are in physical possession of the same and
cultivating the same since last 30 years. The said contentions of the
petitioners herein are contrary to the order dated 06.09.2021 in
I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 and the findings therein.
On the complaint dated 27.01.2021, the Police LMD Colony,
Thimmapur, have already registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2021
against the petitioners herein/defendants herein. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot disturb the possession of the respondents
herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they cannot
violate the order dated 06.09.2021. If the petitioners herein/defendants
interfere with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property violating the order dated 06.09.2021, the
respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for police aid. There is no other
option to them. They have also lodged a complaint in the Police
12
station, but the Police are not taking any action on the said complaint
stating that the dispute is civil in nature. Therefore, they have filed
I.A.No.150 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid. On
consideration of the entire aspects, learned trial Court vide impugned
order dated 28.03.2024, learned trial Court granted police aid to the
respondents/plaintiffs and directed the Station House Officer, Police
LMD Colony, Thimmapur, to provide police aid to the
respondents/plaintiffs in order to implement the order dated
06.09.2021 in I.A.No.172 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021. There is no
error in it.
14. It is relevant to note that this Court came across several
revision petitions/writ petitions filed by parties seeking police aid
alleging violation of ex parte ad interim injunction, decree and
judgment restraining the defendants from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiffs, execution orders etc. Therefore, I feel it
appropriate to give more insights on the issue of consideration of
applications filed seeking police aid and also precedential history.
13
PRECEDENTIAL HISTORY
15. In Satyanarayan Tiwari v. SHO1, Division Bench of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that temporary
injunction granted by trial Court was confirmed by the High Court.
Yet the party who suffered the injunction was alleged to have violated
the said order and police aid was sought by filing of a writ petition.
The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, but however
reversed by the Division Bench, holding that there was no such bar for
granting police aid in writ jurisdiction. But the Division Bench
considering the facts, allowed the writ appeal and granted police aid to
the plaintiff therein. The Division Bench categorically held that High
Court is having power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to
grant police aid.
16. In Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni Narasimham vs.
P. Narasimham 2, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held
that the trial Court granted temporary injunction pending disposal of
the suit and the plaintiffs filed an application seeking police aid
alleging violation of the said order and for implementation of the said
1
AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB)
2
AIR 1971 AP 53
14
temporary order. The Division Bench in Satyanarayan Tiwari
(supra), on examination of the scope of Order 39 Rule 2(3) of CPC,
held that the civil Court in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 151 of CPC, can grant police aid in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants who suffered injunction. However, now Order
39 Rule 2(3) of CPC is omitted by Act 104 of 1976, Section 86(w.e.f.1-
2-1977). In Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi 3, Division Bench of
Apex Court reiterated the said order. .
17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth
Hiralal 4, A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paragraph No.18
specifically held with regard to inherent jurisdiction to grant
temporary injunction and the same is as follows:-
18. There is difference of opinion between the High Court on this point. One
view is that a Court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the
circumstances do not fall within the provisions of Order XXXIX of the
Code: Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial
Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v.
Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view
is that a Court can issue an interim injunction under circumstances which
are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that
the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction:
Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm Bichchha Ram v. Firm
Baldeo Sahai (7), Bhagat Singh v. jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery
owners’ Association v. Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion that the latter
view is correct and that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue3
(2007) 12 SCC 201
4
AIR (1962) SC 327
15temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by the
provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such
expression in s. 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary
injunction in circumstances not covered by O. XXXIX or by any rules made
under the Code. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Code are not
exhaustive for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of
contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future
litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them. The effect
of the expression ‘if it is so prescribed’ is only this that when the rules
prescribe the circumstances in which the temporary injunction can be
issued, ordinarily the Court is not to use its inherent powers to make the
necessary orders in the interests of justice, but is merely to see whether the
circumstances of the case bring it within the prescribed rule. if the
provisions of s. 94 were not there in the Code, the Court could still issue
temporary injunctions, but it could do that in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. No party has a right to insist on the Court’s exercising that
jurisdiction and the Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction only when it
considers it absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to do so. it is in the
incidence of the exercise of the power of the Court to issue temporary
injunction that the provisions of s. 94 of the Code have their effect and not
in taking away the right of the Court to exercise its inherent power.
18. The 3 Judge Bench further held that civil Court has power
under Section 151 of CPC to grant police aid for implementation of
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and prevent abuse of
process, but the civil Courts must exercise the said power under
Section 151 of Cr.P.C. only in exceptional circumstances for which
the Code lays down no procedure. When the parties violate order of
injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order, the Court
can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same
position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give
appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the
16
aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders
passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation
of such order. When in the event of utter violation of the injunction
order, the party forcibly dispossess the other, the Court can order
restoration of possession to the party wronged.
19. In P.R.Muralidharan v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha
Padar5, the Apex Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for
perpetual injunction was dismissed and he filed a writ petition for
police protection. The Division Bench of High Court went into the
question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to hold the possession
for the purpose of issuing a proper direction with regard to police aid.
The Apex Court held that when rights of the parties are not decided by
the trial Court, blanket protection cannot be granted. The Apex Court
had an occasion to consider whether a High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India could grant the relief of police protection.
It further held that in a given case, a person may be entitled to police
protection having regard to the threat perception to his life and liberty
or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a
civil court, and if Court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to
5
(2006) 4 SCC 501
17
perform their duties. It held that there would be no such entitlement
for protection of the writ petitioner’s rights in question (to property or
to an office and discharging of certain functions) when the writ
petitioner’s rights to do so are open to question as manifested by the
pleadings themselves. It held that disputed questions of fact cannot be
gone into in a writ proceeding and that the jurisdiction of a civil court
being wide and plenary, the High Court cannot grant such a relief in a
writ proceedings, it held:-
17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a
writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil
right. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of
injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately
flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying
for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed
protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with
jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of
mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or
right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit.
It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed
possession of a property without first establishing his possession in
an appropriate civil Court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of
this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide
18
jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution would remain
effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in
appropriate situations.
19. A writ for ‘police protection’ so-called, has only a
limited scope, as, when the Court is approached for protection of
rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil Court.
It cannot be extended to cases where rights have interlocutory stage
in an unambiguous manner, and then too, in furtherance of the
decree or order.
20. In Polavarapuru Nagamani v. Paruchuri Koteshwar Rao 6,
Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that
the trial Court granted interim injunction, defendants filed counter to
dismiss the said injunction petition. The trial Court modified the order
passed clarifying that the plaintiffs shall not prevent defendants from
carrying out agricultural operations. Later defendants filed an IA for
police protection alleging that standing crop was destroyed by plaintiffs
and police aid was granted subsequently. On examination of facts of the
said case, the Division Bench held that in an application for police aid
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed if the
order of interim injunction is violated, Order XXI Rule 32 was to be
invoked when there was a violation of an ad-interim injunction or
temporary injunction order. Thus, the Division Bench took a different
6
(2010) 2 ALD 41
19
view to the view taken by earlier Division Bench in Satyanarayana
Tiwari and the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra).
21. The Division Bench further held that it has noticed that
number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the
Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often
than not frivolous suits of injunction are filed only to bring the
defendants around the plaintiff’s view and accept some via-media
arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming
proceedings in the Courts, during which the defendants would not be
able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily,
urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex-parte
injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so,
immediately application is moved under Section 151 of CPC seeking
police protection.
22. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, the Apex Court held
and laid down certain parameters which are as under:-
(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order
of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application
seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to
necessarily file execution petition under Order-XXI Rule 32 or an
20application under Order-XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking
attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court.
(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or
not to exercise of power under section 94 [e] or Section 151 of
CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection
cannot be passed in a routine manner.
(iii) 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, and rights of the opposite
party.
(iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of
disobedience of injunction or alleged breach,. Disobedience or
violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it
should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and
a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by
Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530
and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, in all
cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high
standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements
of the party seeking the intervention of the Court.”
23. In J. Jagannath Reddy vs. Laxmi Devi 7 a learned Single
Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that temporary
injunction obtained by the plaintiff was vacated and appeal preferred
by the plaintiff was pending. During pendency of the said appeal,
7
1998 (1) ALD 453
21
defendants sought for police aid under Section 151 of C.P.C. Thus,
the Division Bench held that grant of police aid under Section 151 of
CPC to the defendant to protect his possession would be arbitrary and
it was to be dealt with under Order 21 Rule 32 or under Contempt of
Courts Act. Further, the entry of the police into the affairs of the
parties after the approach to the civil Court was alien to the civil law.
If there was a finding as to the possession of the property and a
complaint was made to the effect that some other persons were trying
to trespass into the property or committing any offence in that behalf
possibly the police would take action in accordance with law.
24. In D.Tulja Devi v. Margam Shankar 8 Division Bench of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a suit for perpetual
injunction was decreed. The plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition for
execution of the said judgment and decree. In E.P., they filed an
Interlocutory Application under Section 151 of CPC seeking police
aid. The Division Bench held that EP filed under Order 21 Rule 32
CPC seeking perpetual injunction cannot be disposed granting police
aid.
8
(2010) 2 ALD 732
22
25. In Sangu Brahmam v. SHO 9 erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that the plaintiffs obtained decree for perpetual
injunction. The defendants were unsuccessful in appeals as well as
second appeals. Though the possession was found to be with the
petitioners, opposite parties started interfering with the possession.
Therefore, they approached the Station House Officer of the local
police station to protect their possession but in vain. Therefore, they
filed writ petition seeking a direction to the police for extending
necessary help to the petitioners therein. The High Court allowed the
writ petition and directed the police to extend necessary help to
protect possession of the plaintiff over the subject property therein.
The High Court held that in the said case, the plaintiffs got their rights
adjudicated by a civil Court, the controversy is only to the steps to be
taken to ensure compliance with the same. Therefore, in the said
circumstances, this Court held that the High Court can grant police aid
and a direction to the police to provide aid invoking its extra
ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9
(2005) 3 ALD 772
23
26. In Bijiga Paparao v. Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao 10,
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court
granted temporary injunction, it was a contest order. Therefore,
plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid
for protection of the said order. The trial Court granted police aid. On
examination of the said facts, the High Court confirmed the said order
of the trial Court in granting police aid.
27. In HPCL vs. Govt.of A.P. 11, erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that injunction was granted in favour of HPCL,
which was violated by respondents/defendants. Therefore, on
examination of the said facts, the High Court granted police aid in
favour of HPCL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. In Gampala Anthaiah v. Kasarla Venkat Reddy12
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that an ad interim
injunction granted by trial Court was made absolute as it was not
challenged by defendants and was subsisting. During subsistence of
the said interim injunction, plaintiff filed an application before the
trial court seeking police aid alleging interference by the defendants
10
(2015) 2 ALD 171
11
(2015) 2 ALT 59
12
(2014) 2 ALD 281
24
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and
granted police aid. The Division Bench held that an order of
temporary injunction has to be obeyed by the parties to it and when
the plaintiff complains that the defendant is committing breach of the
said order and seeks police protection, the Court is under an obligation
to accord such protection. Unless this is done, the rule of law will not
prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively implemented.
Granting of such orders would uphold the dignity and effectiveness of
the judiciary.
29. In B.Chandrasekhar Reddy v. Nagaraju Yadav13
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court
granted interim injunction to protect damaging of the quarry by the
respondents in I.A. until disposal of the suit. Trial Court also granted
police aid. The defendants filed revision challenging the said order.
On examination of the facts, the High Court held that the trial Court is
right in granting police aid in favour of the plaintiffs.
13
(2013) 2 ALD 626
25
30. In Ganuboina Venkateswara Rao v. Pakalapati
Basavaiah14 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the
defendants violated temporary injunction granted by trial court and on
the application filed by the plaintiffs, trial Court granted police aid for
the purpose of implementation of the said order. The said order
granting police aid to the plaintiff was under challenge. On
examination of the facts, the Division Bench held that the trial court is
right in granting protection to the plaintiff for implementation of the
said order.
31. In Vangetti Bal Reddy v. Karagani Balaiah15, erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court granted an
interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed
written statement in the suit resisting the claim of the
petitioners/plaintiffs. The suit was decreed. Subsequently, defendants
filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and got the ex parte
decree set aside and the suit was restored to file and temporary
injunction granted by the trial Court was subsisting. Despite the ad
interim injunction against the defendants, they attempted to violate the
order. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought grant of police aid. On the
14
(2009) 3 ALD 692
15
(2013) 6 ALD 104
26
application filed by the plaintiffs, trial Court granted police aid. The
same was challenged. The High Court confirmed the order passed by
the trial Court in granting police aid.
32. In Yarlagunta Bhaskar Rao v. Bommaji Danam16,
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the trial Court
granted ad interim injunction, police aid was sought alleging violation
of the said injunction and the trial Court granted police aid. On
challenge, the High Court held that 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 under Contempt of Courts Act,
but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151
CPC from the Civil Court.
33. In Goli Kota Reddy v. Goli Rajagopala Reddy17,
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that civil Court cannot
refer the matter of implementation of a decree for perpetual injunction
to police, as it will be the negation of the right of the judgment debtor
available under Order XXI CPC, and that the executing Court, without
16
(2014) 2 ALT 319
17
(2000) 6 ALD 449
27
deciding the application filed under Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC, cannot
refer the matter to police for implementation of the decree.
34. In P. Shankar Rao v. Smt. B.Susheela 18, erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh held that confirming the order granting
police aid by the trial Court, held that mere fact that the action could
be taken against either party for flouting the injunction under Order 39
Rule 2-A or under the Contempt of Courts Act, does not come in the
way of the Court taking all necessary steps for ensuring obedience of
the injunction order. The Court need not wait till the injunction is
breached. In a fit case, the Court can undoubtedly direct police aid as
a preventive measure. This Power though not expressly conferred, is a
power incidental or ancillary to the exercise of the power to grant
injunction pending the suit.
35. In Khaja Shoukat Ali v. Khairunnissa Begum 19 erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a decree for injunction was
passed by the trial Court and it was confirmed by the first and second
appellate Courts. Thereafter, the defendants filed a suit against the
plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in
respect of the very same property. The plaintiffs in the earlier suit
18
(2000) 2 ALT 606
19
(2005) 6 ALT 710
28
sought police aid. The defendants in the earlier suit and plaintiffs in
the second Suit, challenged the order granting police aid by the trial
Court. The Division Bench confirmed the order granting police aid to
the plaintiffs in the first suit.
36. In N.K.Leasing constructions Ltd. V. Sugan Chand
Sankla 20, Neetha Chintawar v. Bodugam Gopi 21 erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order granted by the trial
Court granting police aid for protection of interim injunction granted
in favour of the plaintiffs to protect their possession.
37. In N.Korpagam v. P.Deivanaiammal 22, the trial Court
granted ex parte interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff.
Thereafter, the same was made absolute. The plaintiff sought for
police aid and the same was allowed. In revision, the Madras High
Court confirmed the order granted by the trial Court. In K.K.
Veluswamy v. N.Palanisamy 23, the Division Bench of Apex Court
reiterated the said principle.
20
(2010) 6 ALD 62
21
(2006) 5 ALD 695
22
AIR 2003 Madras 2019
23
(2011) 11 SCC 275
29
38. In A. Bharathi v. State of Telangana 24, the combined High
Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh, held that the possession of the plaintiff was confirmed by
trial Court, High Court and the Apex Court. Plaintiff submitted
representations to police with a request to provide police aid for
implementation of the same and also alleged that the defendants are
interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property in
violation of the aforesaid orders. The police did not act upon the same.
Therefore, the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition and learned Single Judge,
of this Court directed the police to provide police aid to the plaintiff
for implementation of the said order. The same was confirmed by the
Division Bench.
39. In Ghouse Mohiuddin Ali v. M/s Muslim Educational
Social and Cultural Organization 25, Division Bench of this Court,
held that High Court is having power to grant police aid to implement
the injunction orders granted by civil Court.
40. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. The Station House
Officer, Madhapur P.S.Hyderabad26 A Division Bench of erstwhile
24
2017 (1) ALD 503
25
2024 (6) ALD 696
26
2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB)
30
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with a matter arose
under SARFAESI Act, placing reliance on the principle laid down in
Meera Chauhan (supra), considered power of the civil Court to direct
police officers to provide assistance in the execution of orders or
decree. The Division Bench in paragraph No.43 held as follows:-
43. The power of the civil Court to direct police officers to render
assistance is well recognized. When parties violate orders of injunction or
stay, the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in
the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or
give appropriate direction to the police authorities to render aid to the
aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders
passed in the suit, and also order police protection for implementation of
such an order (Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, (2007) 12 SCC 201)
41. This Court in Kuruma Vanaja v. State of Telangana 27,
directed the police to extend police protection to implement the
injunction order granted by the Special Assistant Agent and Sub
Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam.
42. Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.Chandraiah
@ Y.Chandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,
Rangareddy District, Hyderabad 28, referring to decision of the
Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra), held that a writ is
27
2021 SCC OnLine TS 607
28
2006 SCC OnLine AP 1148
31
maintainable on a complaint that a party had not obeyed a decree or an
order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner or when a
party was deliberately flouting the decree or order and the police
authorities were not providing him the required protection in terms of
the decree or order, passed by a Court having jurisdiction.
43. In Satish Mutually Aided Co-op. Housing Society
Limited v. State of Telangana 29, a Division Bench of this Court held
that once there is an order of injunction and there is direction to
provide police aid for implementation of the prohibitory injunction for
any dispossession of them, police are bound to provide aid.
44. Thatti Narsimha Rao vs. State of Telangana 30, this Court
held that on receipt of an application or representation by the Police
authorities for grant of police protection and if it is found that
respondent/s are violating injunction order, necessary police
protection shall be given to the petitioner/s in implementing injunction
order.
45. In Satyanarayan Lakshminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale31, wherein the Apex Court elucidated the
29
2019 SCC OnLine TS 2783
30
2022 SCC OnLine TS 2384
31
AIR 1960 SC 137
32
scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the High Court
possesses wide powers to issue directions and orders to ensure justice
between parties and to enforce law of the land.
46. In Kabbakula Padma vs. State of Telangana 32, trial court
granted an ex parte interim injunction, plaintiff alleged that the same
was violated by the defendant. Plaintiff approached High Court
seeking police aid. Learned Single Judge, held that the plaintiff is not
entitled for police aid. Plaintiff preferred intra-court appeal under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Division Bench dismissed the said appeal
holding that plaintiff is not entitled to enforce an ex parte ad-interim
injunction. However, Division Bench granted liberty to the plaintiff to
avail alternative remedies available to him.
COURT VIEW:
47. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that
Civil Courts have power to grant police aid when there is allegation of
violation of injunction granted by trial Court. But the civil Courts have
to exercise the said power in rarest of rare cases and with great
circumspection and caution.
32
2023 (1) ALT 765
33
48. In the light of the same, the following parameters are laid
down for filing and considering applications filed seeking police aid:-
i. On the allegation of violation of ex parte ad-interim
injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiff has to
approach trial Court seeking police aid by filing an
application under Section 151 of CPC.
ii. The trial Court shall examine the facts of the said case
and decide the said application. If the defendants files
counter opposing interim injunction application, the trial
Court shall decide the said I.A. first and thereafter an
application filed by plaintiffs seeking police aid. Trial
Court cannot decide application filed seeking police aid
first and thereafter petition filed seeking injunction.
iii. The trial Court shall consider all the assertions made by
the parties in the petition and counters seeking police aid.
iv. On trial Court granting temporary injunction on contest,
if no appeal is preferred against the said order, on
confirming prima facie case and possession, the plaintiff
has to file an application under Section 151 of CPC
seeking police aid. It is always advisable and proper to
34file an application before the trial Court seeking police
aid instead of submitting representation to the police
seeking aid and filing writ petition alleging non-
consideration of the said representation. The same will
avoid interference of police in civil matters, without an
order of civil Court.
v. If an appeal is preferred challenging the order granted by
the trial Court and during pendency of the said appeal, if
there is violation of the said temporary injunction,
plaintiff shall file an application before the appellate
Court seeking police aid.
vi. Plaintiff shall file an application seeking a direction to
the Station House Officer of jurisdictional Police Station
to provide police aid. Plaintiff cannot seek a direction to
Superintendent of Police, or Deputy Superintendent of
Police etc., to provide police aid unless there are
exceptional circumstances. .
vii. In case of trial Court decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff
seeking perpetual injunction, no appeal is preferred
against the said judgment and decree and it attained
35finality, on establishing prima facie case and possession
of the plaintiff, if there is violation of the said judgment
and decree, the plaintiff can file EP and also an
application in the said EP seeking police aid.
viii. On decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking
perpetual injunction, defendant filing the appeal
challenging the said judgment and decree, and if there is
violation of the said injunction decree during the
pendency of the appeal, plaintiff can file an application
before the appellate Court seeking police aid or file an
Execution Petition in the event there is no order of stay.
ix. In the event, the suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual
injunction is dismissed and the plaintiff prefers an appeal
challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff
may seek an injunction from the appellate Court, and in
case of its violation, may also seek police aid from the
appellate Court.
x. The party can also file an application under Order 39
Rule 2-A of CPC seeking punishment of defendants on
the allegation of violation of the injunction order granted.
36xi. Trial Court cannot grant police aid suo-motu.
xii. In Ch.Veeramma v. Mahaboob Subhani 33, the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the
term ‘status quo’ is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and
gives rise to doubt. It implies the existing state of things
at any given point of time. The phrase ‘status quo’ has
been derived from ‘status quo ante bellum’. Vide Bharat
Coking coal Limited vs. State of Bihar-1987 (Suppl) 3
SCC 394; Satyabrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar
Kishku 1994(2) SCC 266. It was held that status quo
shall be specified by the Court before ordering the same.
Such ambiguous orders of directing the parties to
maintain the status quo without specifying what the
status quo was at the given point of time, would lead to
further complications. It is expedient therefore not to pass
such ambiguous orders.
Trial Court shall consider the said principle while
passing status quo order. Without specifying who is in
possession of the property, it is not advisable to grant
33
1991 (1) ALT 366
37status quo order and it will avoid misuse of status quo
order and multiplicity of litigation.
xiii. Even the defendant can file an application seeking
injunction against the plaintiff, on obtaining the same, the
defendant can seek police aid for alleged violation of
injunction order granted by the court.
xiv. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemanth Vimalnath
Narichania and others34, the Apex Court held that no
litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of
a case in a Court of law as the interim order always
merges into final order to be passed in the case and if the
case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands
nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take
any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order
and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that case is
found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, or party withdrew
the writ petition, shows that a frivolous writ petition had
been filed. The maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’
which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no
34
2010 (9) SCC 437
38one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a
situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the
wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any
undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party
invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be
neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be
permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the
delayed action of the Court.
It was further held that the forum of the writ Court
cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as
the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court
comes to the conclusion that the matter requires
adjudication by some other appropriate forum and
relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant
any interim relief in favour of such litigant for an
interregnum period till the said party approaches the
alternative forum and obtains interim relief.
An order of withdrawal of a suit does not amount
to a decree of the Court, which can be executed.
39
It is not permissible for a party to file a writ
petition obtaining certain orders during the pendency of
the petition and withdraw the same without getting
proper adjudication of the issue involved therein and
insists that the benefits of the interim orders or
consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim
order passed by the writ Court would continue. The
benefit of the interim relief automatically gets
withdrawn/neutralized on withdrawal of the said petition.
In such a case, concept of restitution becomes applicable,
otherwise the party can continue to get benefit of the
interim order even after losing the case in the Court. The
Court should also pass order expressly neutralizing the
effect of all consequential orders passed in pursuance of
the interim order passed by the Court. Such express
directions may be necessary to check the rising trend
among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim
measure and then avoid adjudication on merits.
Thus, the said analogy is also applicable to the suit
proceedings and other proceedings before the trial Court.
40
Therefore, trial Courts shall consider the aforesaid
principle laid down by Apex Court while dealing with
petitions filed seeking police aid.
xv. The above mentioned parameters are only illustrative and
not exhaustive. There may be many more situations to
seek police aid. The parties and the Courts shall consider
the contentions, circumstances under which party sought
police aid and decide the same in accordance with the
settled legal principles discussed supra and also in
various other judgments rendered by constitutional
Courts which are holding the field.
49. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:09.06.2025.
Note: L.R.copy to be marked.
b/o. vvr