METTU MALYADRI Vs. METTU SIVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CRP is directed against the order and decretal order dated 15.03.2012 passed in I.A. No.24 of 2013 in O.S. No.36 of 2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the suit for injunction and I.A. No.103 of 2012 for grant of ad interim injunction. The lower Court granted injunction order dated 29.10.2012. Then the respondent herein filed I.A. No.24 of 2013 seeking police aid. By an order dated 15.03.2013 the lower Court allowed the said petition and ordered police aid to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) The main contention of Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the lower Court ought to have considered that no application was filed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC and without resorting to the procedure prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court straightaway granted police aid. He has relied on a decision reported in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, 2012 4 SCC 307. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent, has referred to the affidavit filed by the respondent herein in support of the application filed seeking police protection and the counter filed by the petitioner herein in the said application and submits that the Court below, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, granted police aid. It is also submitted that a specific averment of the respondent that the petitioner obstructed while he was attempted to make construction on 22.12.2012 is not denied. He has also relied on the judgments of this Court reported in Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao, 2010 6 ALT 92, and B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. K. Naga Raju Yadav, 2013 1 ALT 532 in support of his contention that where situation warrants the Courts have been granting police aid.