IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21st) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3748, 3625 & 3530 of 2011 Between: Kandi Chokka Reddy & another … Petitioners And: Kandi Linga Reddy … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3748, 3625 and 3530 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.3748 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27.07.2011 in IA No.1194 of 2004, CRP No.3625 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 27.07.2011 in IA No.1193 of 2004 and CRP No.3530 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 29.07.2011 in IA No.1208 of 2010 in IA No.18 of 2002 in AS No.3 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, wherein the said petitions filed by the respondent herein, were allowed. 2. As the three revision petitions arise out of the same matter and between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, which is two plots measuring 8 and 4 guntas in Sy.No.495/A (total 12 guntas) of Kachapur village of Julapalli Mandal. The petitioners/ defendants contested the suit, disputing the plaintiff’s claim of title and also possession and contending that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land in their own right after their father Rajaiah, who was recorded as pattedar and possessor. After full- fledged trial, the suit was dismissed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that he purchased the suit land or that he was in possession thereof. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed appeal in AS No.3 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli In the said appeal, plaintiff filed IA No.18 of 2002 for temporary injunction and the same was granted on 28.03.2002, which was made absolute on 21.07.2004. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed IA No.1208 of 2010 seeking police aid for implementation of the order of injunction granted in IA No.18 of 2002. Subsequently, the appeal was disposed of on 26.08.2004 remanded back to the trial Court in view of the application filed by the plaintiff for summoning one Mankala Pochamallu and also for producing additional evidence. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred second appeal in SA No.1403 of 2004 and the said appeal was disposed of 24.01.2005 holding that the second appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter, the defendant filed CMA No.16 of 2005 before the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Against the said orders, the plaintiff filed CRP No.5625 of 2006 and the same was allowed on 23.04.3008 holding that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain CMA. Thereafter the defendants filed CMA No.798 of 2008 before the High Court. By order dated 29.10.2009, this Court allowed CMA and the decree and judgment dated 26.08.2004 in AS No.3 of 2002 were set aside and directed the appellate Court to decide the matter on merits. It was also observed that the orders passed in IA No.1193 and 1194 of 2004 are set aside and in case the plaintiff intends to press them they shall be considered on their own merits. The plaintiff has pressed those applications again before the appellate Court and by the impugned common order dated 27.07.2011, both applications were allowed with a liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce rebuttal evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions i.e., CRP Nos.3748 and 3625 of 2011 are filed. 4. The above narrative would show the prolonged litigation that has gone through over the years between the parties. With a view to put an end to the litigation, perhaps it was observed in the order dated 20.10.2009 that the appellate Court shall not consider the feasibility of remanding the matter under any circumstances. In the impugned common order, the appellate Court held that the simple sale deed Ex.A.1 is vital document and since the genuineness of the said document is in serious dispute, an opportunity be given to the plaintiff to produce the said document dated 10.07.1978 by summoning one Mankala Pochamallu. The question as to whether or not the said document requires to be sent to finger print expert for comparison of the thumb impression contained thereon does not however arise for consideration under the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC. Since no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by production of the said document through Mankala Pochamallu, who is having custody of the same, the discretion exercised by the appellate Court in directing production of the said document does not call for any interference. 5. The other application, IA No.1194 of 2004, is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to produce additional evidence. In the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the said application with a liberty to the defendants to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce rebuttal evidence. The impugned order, permitting both parties to adduce necessary evidence regarding the same does not call for any interference. However, the question as to whether or not the said document is to be sent to the Finger Print Expert for comparison of thumb impression contained in Ex.A.1 disputed document with that of LTI contained in the document to be produced is a matter to be considered in appropriate application filed in that regard and the same does not arise for consideration in either of the two applications now filed under Order 16 Rule 6 or Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 6. IA No.1208 of 1208 of 2010 is filed seeking police aid for implementation of the order of injunction granted in IA No.18 of 2002. The learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the said application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is aged 75 years and taking advantage of his old age, the defendants may try not to implement the injunction order and the plaintiff cannot resist the defendants due to his old age. The old age of the plaintiff cannot be a valid ground for granting police aid for implementation of the injunction order passed in IA No.18 of 2002. In the event of any violation of the order of injunction, the plaintiff can always seek appropriate remedies available under law. 7. It is to be noted that the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed after full-fledged trial holding that he failed to prove his possession over the suit land. The appeal filed by the plaintiff is now pending after remand. No doubt, the plaintiff was granted temporary injunction in IA No.18 of 2002. The defendants would contend that under the guise of police protection, the plaintiff who is never been in possession is trying to enter into the land. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in ‘Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao[1]’, held as follows: “….(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 application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A 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.” 9. In the present case, the remedy for the plaintiff in the event of violation of the order of injunction by the defendants is to file an application under Order 21 Rule 32 or Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, but not to seek police aid. In the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge granted police aid that too on the ground that the plaintiff is aged 75 years and is wholly misconceived and is unsustainable. 10. In the result, CRP No.3530 of 2011 is allowed setting aside the order dated 29.07.2011 in IA No.1208 of 2010 and CRP Nos.3625 and 3748 of 2011 are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.12.2011 bss [1] 2010(2) ALD 41 (DB)