MYLA MALLA REDDI Vs. NATUKULA KOTESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where the Court is satisfied that the police aid has to be granted on the petition and has granted injunction, it is for that Court whether that order has to be implemented or not and it is not a matter that has to be interfered with under Section 115 C.P.C. The learned counsel cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni Narsimham. When a judgment has been cited, the Court has to first see whether the ratio decidendi is applicable, especially when the fact finding court has arrived at a conclusion and the question of law on different circumstances on facts does not come in the way of the Court. Each and every case has to be considered on its facts. In this case, the order reads as follows:

(2.) On a reading of the order, it is clear that the Judge has applied his mind. When the Court comes to the conclusion that there are attempts to interfere with the petitioners' possession and enjoyment, it is the duty of the Court that the order passed by it must be complied with in its true spirit and strict sense. In view of the attempts for interference, the court granted injunction and it also made it absolute. In such a case, the Court is justified in granting the police-aid. Such an order cannot be said to be illegal nor it can be said that it has been passed without jurisdiction.

(3.) It is neither permissible nor desirable for this Court to interfere under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the C.R.P. is dismissed.