w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Senthan Properties v/s M/s. S.V.S. Infra Services Pvt Ltd.

    Civil Revision Petition No. 1173 of 2020

    Decided On, 21 January 2021

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

    For the Petitioner: J.C. Francis, Advocate. For the Respondent: G. Vivekanand, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The order dated 12.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2020 in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 in O.S.No.318 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Medak, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the I.A.No.1671 of 2019 granting police aid to the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that first respondent herein filed O.S.No.318 of 2019 stating that the second respondent herein in the capacity of proprietor of the petitioner herein offered to sell plaint A schedule property admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas (Plaint A schedule property) for a total sum of Rs.26,86,50,000/- and accordingly the first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the second respondent dated 14.4.2019 by paying Rs.4,25,00,000/- to the second respondent towards advance sale consideration agreeing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,61,50,000/- within three months. The first respondent was ready with the balance sale consideration by 15.6.2019 to get the property registered in his name, though he has three months time, and he informed the same to the second respondent and requested to conduct a government survey and physical measurement of the property and for fixation of boundaries, which the second respondent failed to do. Instead, the second respondent requested the first respondent to purchase part of land admeasuring Ac.3-00 out of total land admeasuring Ac.4-39 guntas (Plaint B Schedule property) by paying sale consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/- as he was in urgent need of money and undertook to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries of plaint A schedule property later. The first respondent agreed for the same and obtained Agreement of sale cum AGPA with possession bearing D.No.30288/2019 dated 21.6.2019 in his favour towards the Western side of the plaint A schedule property. The first respondent paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/- to the second respondent.

The first respondent further stated that in spite of several requests made by him, the second respondent did not take steps to conduct survey of the plaint A schedule property and to fix boundaries. On 15.12.2019 the first respondent demanded the second respondent to execute and register sale deed in his favour for the remaining extent of Ac.1-39 guntas (Plaint C schedule property) and expressed his readiness with the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,66,50,000/- to which the second respondent stated that he has already sold the plaint C schedule property in favour of third parties. Whereupon the first respondent made enquiries and obtained encumbrance certificate from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy and came to know that the second respondent executed an agreement of sale cum GPA dated 08.11.2019 and sale deed dated 16.11.2019 in respect of the plaint C schedule property in favour of petitioner herein, who in turn created false and bogus sale deed bearing Doc.No.48684/2019 dated 16.11.2019 in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. The second respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the initial agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019 and by suppressing the same the second respondent created bogus sale deed.

The allegation of the first respondent was that suppressing the original agreement of sale dated 14.4.2019, the respondent Nos.3 to are now trying to alienate the plaint C schedule property in favour of third parties basing on the bogus sale deed dated 16.11.2019 to cause loss to the first respondent and that they are also trying to change the nature of the plaint C schedule property. Therefore, the first respondent filed I.A.No.1671 of 2019, in which the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the first respondent. While so on 29.7.2020 and 31.7.2020 the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and their henchmen came to the plaint C schedule property and destroyed the existing roads high handedly and tried to level the land and lay new roads and they also threatened the first respondent. Therefore, being frightened and in order to preserve the plaint C schedule property the first respondent filed I.A.No.430 of 2020 for implementation of the ad-inteirm order dated 20.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 and to grant police aid / assistance, restraining the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and their agents from changing the nature of the plaint C schedule property, which has been extended from time to time.

3. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed their counter denying the material averments made in the affidavit stating that the second respondent conveyed the property in their favour and that as the order passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 is not subsisting, question of according police aid does not arise and that they have not violated the order dated 20.12.2019.

4. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for both parties ordered the I.A.No.430 of 2020 directing the Police Ameenpur to provide necessary aid to the first respondent / plaintiff whenever need arises for effective implementation of the ad interim order dated 20.12.2019 in I.A.No.1671 of 2019, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed in I.A.No.1671 of 2019 was only an ad interim order and unless and until the ad interim order became final in favour of the party who obtained such order, the Court cannot grant police aid. The learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in Kasturi Venkata Subbaiah and others V. Veerapareddy Yasodamma (2008 (6) ALD 90), Gangupanthula Ranaga Rao V. Bathula Laxmaiah and others (2018 (6) ALT 778 (S.B) and Vanga Buchi Reddy V. Vanga Madhusudhan Reddy (2004 (4) ALT 267 (S.B) in support of his contention.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that since the respondents 3 to 6 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent over the suit schedule property in violation of the ex parte interim order, the first respondent was constrained to file I.A.430 of 2020, which the trial Court allowed and ordered police aid and that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is neither material irregularity nor illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the present revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the above background, now the point which this Court is called upon to answer is whether the order under revision in granting police aid at the stage of ad-interim injunction is correct?

8. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order is an ad interim order. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner herein had filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court challenging the ad interim order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.1671 of 2019. Of course, the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Unless and until the interim injunction is made absolute and the rights of the parties are crystallized, the Court cannot normally order police aid petition because the party in whose favour the ad interim order was granted may take advantage of the situation and under the guise of the said order that party may cause undue hardship to the other party. Such is the ratio decidendi in all the cases cites supra. If the petitioner herein against whom an order of ex parte injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction, the first respondent can take recourse to file a petition under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC, which lays down a punitive measure for the purpose of compelling a party to comply with the order of injunction. But the Court cannot straight away order police aid petition without disposing of the interim injunction petition because granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the opposite party, without hearing whom an injunction was granted against him. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below was in error in passing orders on the petition for police aid, without disposing of I.A.No.1671 of 2019 on merits.

9. In Adhikarath Valappil ... vs Korath Illath Valappil Mammi (AIR 1999 Ker 383) the Kerala High Court held as under:

We are of the view that this Court shall not interfere in matters involving civil rights with an order of police protection on the basis of an ad interim ex parte order of the Civil Court and that only a final order passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be enforced with the assistance of the police. We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the learned single Judge ordering police protection in case of violation of the ex parte injunction order is not in order and by the impugned judgment police authorities are given the right to decide whether there is a violation of the injunction order passed by the Civil Court. We also feel that Courts should be reluctant to grant

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

police protection on the basis of ex parte injunction orders, which would only pave the way for further litigation between parties, since the parties, on the basis of the police protection order and with the connivance of the police, complete constructions or commit waste or do other acts which they would not be able to do even after final orders are passed by the Civil Court. This Court has come across many such instances earlier. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the principle laid down in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order under revision is set aside and the Court below is hereby directed to expedite the I.A.No.1671 of 2019. No order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
O R