IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2625 of 2010 Between: Dharmajipeta Malla Reddy ..Petitioner AND Dharmajipeta Prathap Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the docket order dated 07-05-2010 in I.A.No.200 of 2010 in I.A.No.59 of 2008 in O.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet. The suit was filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property claiming the land to be in possession of the respondent since the times of his father with which the revision petitioner interfered. The revision petitioner contested the claim stating that he purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 13-03-2007. Pending the suit, the respondent applied for and was granted an interim injunction in his favour in I.A.No.59 of 2008, which continues to be in force. The respondent applied for grant of police protection for implementation of the interim orders in I.A.No.59 of 2008 alleging the revision petitioner to be attempting to interfere with the suit property even after the grant of interim order in his favour and the trial Court was pleased to allow the application in I.A.No.200 of 2010, which is under challenge herein and the order was passed due to the absence of any representation on behalf of the revision petitioner and then the trial Court going into the justification for the request in detail. The trial Court referred to P. Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela (2000 (2) ALD 147) in this regard. The revision petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and approached this Court contending that there was no cause of action for seeking any police protection in the absence of any documentary proof or evidence showing his interference with the property or violation of the interim injunction. Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the respondent. The point for consideration is whether the order granting police aid is sustainable and it should still continue to be in force? In P. Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela (stated supra), this Court recognized the right or duty of the Court to take necessary steps for ensuring the obedience of injunction order, if necessary, by directing the police aid as a preventive measure, but for that purpose, the Court has to be satisfied, prima facie, that there is any imminent threat of violation of interim order and there is no other way of ensuring the effective compliance with the interim order unless the police intervene. In fact, the Court has to find ways and means to avoid granting an order for police aid as far as possible and thus, it is only on the non-availability of any other alternative than granting such police aid, the Court will act in that manner. It is seen from the affidavit in support of the petition for police aid that neither the date nor the time of attempt for interference by the respondent nor any other details were given and how the alleged attempts for interference were successfully resisted was also not detailed. In any view, the order granting police aid was in force from 07-05-2010 till an ex parte order was passed in this Civil Revision Petition on 09-07-2010 for more than two (2) months without intervention of any interim order from this Court even in this revision, and therefore, the apprehensions or dangers, which led the respondent to seek police aid, must have been possibly averted in the meanwhile. The grant of police aid is not in eternity and only for the purpose of meeting any such threats as conceived by this court in P. Shanker Rao v. B. Susheela. Therefore, irrespective of the absence of any definite material in support of the request for police aid, the continuance of the order granting police aid indefinitely need not be resorted to. However, if it becomes necessary for either party to seek appropriate reliefs in this regard in future during pendency of the suit, it will be always open to them to approach the trial Court with the necessary request, which the trial Court will consider on merits in accordance with law depending on the facts and circumstances probablised before it justifying or not justifying such a request. Therefore, subject to the above observations, the order in I.A.No.200 of 2010 in I.A.No.59 of 2008 in O.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, dated 07-05- 2010 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs making it clear that this order is no bar for either party seeking appropriate reliefs as indicated above during the pendency of the suit. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-08-2010 Ksn