AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radhakrishna Rao, J.—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 u/s 115 C.P.C. The learned counsel cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rayapati Audemma Vs. Pothineni Narasimham, . 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:
"In view of the fact that the interim injunction is made absolute and the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners is prima facie established and as there seems to be some attempts to dispossess the petitioners as can be seen from the several complaints lodged to the police, it is just and necessary to grant police aid in case there is any attempt of dispossession of the petitioners from the petition schedule property. Accordingly the Petition is allowed. No costs."
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.
It is neither permissible nor desirable for this Court to interfere u/s 115 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the C.R.P. is dismissed.