1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 929 OF 2010 Madhukar Balu Ghorpade & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Sou. Rukmini Ankush Sawant & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Pradeep S. Gole for the petitioners. Mr. D. D. Rananaware for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2 December 2009 passed by the Trial Court granting police aid to the respondents and the further order dated 16 December 2009 rejecting the petitioners’ application for review of the said order. 3. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for injunction and prayed for an 2 interim injunction. By an order dated 16 September 2009, the Trial Court passed an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from disturbing the possession of the respondents of the suit property. According to the respondent, despite the order of injunction the petitioners continued to disturb the possession of the respondents and they also tried to obstruct the respondents from entering into the suit property. The respondents, therefore, made an application for permission to grant police aid. The Court granted the said permission. The application for review has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order granting police aid was passed without hearing and, therefore, bad in law. Record discloses that the application for police aid was made on 3 November 2009 and the matter was posted for response of the petitioners on 30 November 2009. On that day, the petitioners and their advocate were absent. The matter was adjourned to 2 December 2009 and on that day also the petitioners and their advocate were absent. The Court, therefore, passed an order in the absence of the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 30 November 2009 and 2 December 2009, the matter was posted for issues and, therefore, it was not 3 necessary for the petitioners to attend the Court and, therefore, they remained absent. The submission cannot be accepted for the reasons given below. 5. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) states that at the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statement, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order 10, and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material and propositions of fact or of law, the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order 14 of the Code contemplates hearing of the parties and their pleaders at the time of framing of the issues. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they were not required to remain present on the date fixed by the Court for framing of the issues, has to be rejected. The petitioners were required to remain present. They remained absent. The Court, therefore, committed no error in proceeding with the hearing of the application for police aid in their absence. 6. No other point is urged. 4 7. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)