Rajigiri Gopala Rao and Others vs Boddupalli Prakasarao and Others

K.B. Siddappa, J.—This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.987/93 in O.S.No.196/93 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada by which the Munsif granted police protection as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents in the said LA. filed this revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that police protection can be granted for implementing the positive injunction order in favour of respondents. However, as there is no such positive order in favour of the defendants, the injunction petition of the plaintiff was to be dismissed. Therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in J. Sambamurthy v. Ch. Srinivasa Rao 1987 (2) ALT 630 wherein, it was held that the temporary injunction sought for by the defendants against the plaintiff in a suit cannot be granted. Such an injunction can be granted only when there is a counter claim or set off. It is also held that while it is the plaintiff who gets positive relief in the main suit and for that purpose pays the Court fee, the defendant does not get any positive relief in the suit in cases where no set-off or counter-claim is made and that the only benefit the defendant gets in the event of his success, is that the plaintiff is refused relief. He also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. Commissioner of Police, 1982 (2) ALT 161 wherein, while approving the judgment in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 (1) All.ER.763 the Division Bench held that the Civil Courts have ample jurisdiction to give direction to the police to render aid to the aggrieved parties, with regard to implementation of the order of the Court or exercise of rights created under the order of the Court. On the ratio of the above judgments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the I.A. filed for giving protection is not maintainable in the suit.

I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order was passed taking into consideration the news item published in newspapers. If there is any disturbance from anybody, the respondents herein may take steps according to law and they cannot file the petition to get police protection in the suit of the plaintiff.

For the above said reasons, I set aside the impugned order and accordingly the C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.