HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2119 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S. No.40 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A. No.307 of 2011 under Order - XXXIX Rules – 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. The trial Court passed an order of ad interim injunction. Stating that the petitioners are interfering with the possession over the suit schedule property, despite the order of ad interim injunction, they filed I.A. No.360 of 2011 under Section 151 CPC on 21-03-2011 with a prayer to direct the Station House Officer to grant police aid. 2. The petitioners, on the one hand, filed counter in I.A. No.307 of 2011 and opposed I.A. No.360 of 2011 on the other hand. The trial Court allowed both the applications through separate orders, dated 11-04-2011. This CRP is filed against the order in I.A. No.360 of 2011. 3. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The CPC provides a facility not only for grant of temporary injunction, but also for enforcement thereof. The occasion to file an application seeking police aid would arise only when the order of temporary injunction was made absolute by the Trial Court, after hearing both the parties and when the same is not the subject matter of the appeal or revision. This Court has dealt with this aspect in detail in N.K. LEASING CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., v. SUGAN CHAND SANKLA AND ANOTHER[1]. It was held that filing of an application seeking police aid in support of an order of ad-interim injunction is not permissible. 5. In the instant case, the respondents filed I.A. No.360 of 2011 at a time when the order that was operating in his favour was purely ad interim in nature. It was rather a matter of coincidence that the order of temporary injunction prayed for in I.A. No.307 of 2011 has been made absolute through separate order, dated 11-04-2011, and on the same day, I.A. No.360 of 2011 was allowed. 6. The respondents could have sought police aid, if only the interference on the part of the petitioners continued after I.A. No.307 of 2011 was allowed on merits. Admittedly, I.A. No.360 of 2011 was filed much before I.A. No.307 of 2011 was allowed. On this short ground, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 11, 2011. KTL [1] 2010 (6) ALT 120