Narayanpet Shafi Ahmed v. T. Gulabchand

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2356 of 2016 ORDER:

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer for petitioner and Mr. K. Sita Ram for respondent.

2. The revision is directed against the order dated 20.04.2016 in IA.No.316 of 2016. The docket order, impugned in the revision, reads thus:

U/S 151 C.P.C IA NO.316/2016 IA NO.36/2014 OS NO.153 of 2013 Perused the record. Police Aid is granted to the petitioner as per the orders in IA No.36/2014 till disposal of the suit. Accordingly the petition is allowed.

Sd/ X X X X X 20.04.2016."

3. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer assails the order under revision on various legal and factual grounds. The first ground is that application was filed on 11.06.2015, application was numbered after 11 months, counter was filed by the revision petitioner on 22.03.2016, the trial Court did not pass any reasoned order showing that the case for grant of police aid is made out and that to ensure implementation of the injunction granted by the trial Court, the police aid is given to respondent.

The fact that temporary injunction was granted in favour of respondent is not the conclusive circumstance. Had the trial Court considered the matter from the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit in IA.No.316 of 2016, the order impugned would not have been passed.

4. Mr. K. Sita Ram, by placing strong reliance upon the categorical assertions in the affidavit, submits that the revision petitioner has no option except to respect the injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of his

client and if the injunction order is disobeyed, seeking police aid is a natural remedy available to a party and no exception can be taken. To meet the objections of revision petitioner that the docket order is precise and cryptic, learned counsel tried to persuade this Court that the Court is required to consider the pleadings in IA and even if the docket order is very precise, that is no ground to interfere.

5. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed CMA.No.51 of 2015 before the II Additional District Judge, Adoni and the same is pending disposal for the past one year. The revision petitioner opposed grant of police aid. Had the trial Court considered the pleadings while granting the prayer, certainly it would have helped this Court in appreciating whether the jurisdiction is properly exercised by the trial Court or not. The docket order is without reasons, on that ground it is set aside.

The matter is remanded to the trial Court for disposal afresh. The trial Court is directed to dispose of IA.No.316 of 2016 within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Learned II Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of CMA.No.51 of 2015 within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petitioner is given liberty to place before the learned Judge, through a memo, the order in this revision for complying with the direction issued to dispose of the CMA..

The civil revision petition is allowed and remanded. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________ S. V. BHATT, J June 30, 2016 DSK