S SAYANNA Vs. P SUDERSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order of the learned VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 12-6-1995 made in I.A. No. 112 of 1995 in O.S. No.2425 of 1994, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed the present revision.

(2.) The facts of the case are: The plaintiffs originally filed I.A. No.508 of 1994 seeking interim injunction against the respondent-defendant. Initially temporary injunction was granted which was made absolute subsequently. When the matter was carried to the appellate Court, the appellate Court confirmed the orders of the trial Court. Thus the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant started creating obstructions and trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, in spite of the injunction order. On 7-2-95 the defendant locked the premises of the plaintiffs. Then the plaintiffs went to the Police Station and lodged complaint. Knowing this the defendant removed the lock and ran away. Thus the defendant has disobeyed the Court orders. In those circumstances the plaintiffs were forced to file LA. No.112 of 1995 for a direction to the Musheerbad Station House Officer to strictly and effectively implement and enforce the orders of in junction passed in LA. No.508 of 1994. The defendant resisted that petition by denying the plaintiffs' averments and contended that it is an after-thought of the plaintiffs to harass him. He further contended that he never disobeyed the Court orders at any point of time, nor locked the plaintiffs' house and requested the Court to dismiss the petition. The Court below after hearing the arguments of the Counsel on either side, held that there are triable issues pending regarding the identity of the properties and also the title and ownership and in those circumstances granting of Police protection either to the plaintiffs or to the defendant would lead to exhibition of muscle power and wrestling to wrench out the property of one another and opined that there are no grounds warranting to give direction to the Police. Thus holding the Court below dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs preferred the present revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below is not justified in dismissing the petition filed seeking police protection. After perusing the material on record and upon hearing the Counsel for both sides, the Court below gave a clear finding that the property bearing No.1-4-483 and the property bearing No.1-4-485/3 are quite different and distinctive and the plaintiffs and the defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties respectively, and granting police protection to any party would lead to exhibition of muscle power and wrestling to wrench out the property of one another and rightly dismissed the said petition.