IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4247 of 2011 BETWEEN Veerabhadra. ... PETITIONER AND Shivshette Madhava Rao and 8 others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is by defendant No.6, who is also respondent No.6 in I.A.No.50 of 2011 in O.S.No.20 of 2011 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, aggrieved by the order of the Court below in I.A.No.105 of 2011 dated 19.07.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, who appears as caveator. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction and obtained ex parte temporary injunction in I.A.No.50 of 2011 on 19.04.2011. However, the summons in the suit were served only after June 2011 and the petitioner engaged a counsel, filed his appearance on 11.07.2011 and on 01.08.2011, counter in the said IA as well as written statement in the suit was also filed. Thereafter, the IA was posted to various dates but was not heard for some reason or the other. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that the further application of the respondent/plaintiff being I.A.No.105 of 2011 seeking police aid for implementation of the order of injunction was allowed by the Court below, which is impugned herein. He further contends that in spite of there being appearance as well as counter and written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, the impugned order is passed ex parte without hearing the petitioner. 4. Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the present application for police aid was also heard on 11.07.2011 and the appearance said to have been filed by the petitioner in the office of the Court below was not within anybody’s knowledge, which perhaps explains that the petitioner’s counsel was not heard by the Court below. 5. In either case, the fact remains that the petitioner was not heard when the present impugned order was passed notwithstanding that he is contesting I.A.No.50 of 11 itself as well as the suit by filing counter and written statement as early as on 01.08.2011. When the basic order in I.A.No.50 of 2011 is under contest by the petitioner, the Court below could not have passed a further order in I.A.No.105 of 2011 without hearing the petitioner herein. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.105 of 2011 is remitted to the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa to be decided along with I.A.No.50 of 2011 after hearing both sides. It is represented at the bar that I.A.No.50 of 2011 is now scheduled for hearing before the learned Junior Civil Judge on 16.10.2011 and in view of the urgency expressed by both sides, it is desirable that the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa hears and decides I.A.No.50 of 2011 as well as I.A.No.105 of 2011 by completing the hearing on 16.10.2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon at the earliest. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the directions, as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 29, 2011 Note: 1. Furnish C.C. of the order by 01.10.2011. 2. Office to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa immediately. (B/o) DSK