THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.27072 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, it is a proprietory concern and tenant of premises bearing No.1-9 (1-1-9) in plot No.9 of survey No.11/1 situated at Ambedkarnagar, Habsuguda, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to one Mr. M. Durga Reddy. While so, when it was carrying out alteration work to the front portion of the leasehold premises, the 4th respondent made attempts to interfere with the work, without having any right whatsoever. Therefore, it has filed a suit in O.S.No.2102 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at NTR Nagar, Rangareddy District, against the 4th respondent, for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, it has also filed I.A.No.2396 of 2009 seeking interim injunction. The court below, while ordering notices in the suit, by an order dated 21.10.2009, granted ad interim injunction in its favour. However, the 4th respondent is interfering with its possession of the leasehold premises. Hence, it has given a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 24.10.2009 against the 4th respondent requesting to provide police aid. Instead of providing police aid, the 3rd respondent directed both the parties to maintain status quo. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. When once there is an ad interim injunction against the 4th respondent, the best course available to him is to approach the court below and file an application seeking vacation of the said order. Without doing so, in my considered view, he shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over its business premises contrary to the order of ad interim injunction. 4. Further, when it is the grievance of the petitioner that there is an order of ad interim injunction against the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent is interfering with the possession of its business premises, it should have approached the court below and file an application seeking police aid. Without availing such an alternative remedy, it approached the 3rd respondent and gave the above complaint. When once there is an order of ad interim injunction, in my considered view, the 3rd respondent has no business to direct the parties to maintain status quo. 5. In the light of my foregoing discussion and now that the petitioner expressed its willingness to approach the court below and file an application seeking police protection, it is hereby directed to approach the court below and file an application seeking police aid, and on such application, the court below will consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 14th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.27072 of 2009 (Disposed of) 14th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS