THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY. C.R.P.No. 4216 of 2010. ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dt. 29.7.2010 in I.A.No. 83 of 2004 in O.S.No. 224 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. The 1st respondent herein filed suit O.S.No. 224 of 2004 for injunction against the respondents 2 to 4. It is stated that an ex parte interim injunction was granted in favour of the 1st respondent on 29.12.2004. The 1st respondent herein claims to be in possession of the suit land. The petitioner herein also claims to be in possession of the same land. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No. 26 of 2010 seeking to grant police aid to protect his possession by virtue of the interim injunction granted in his favour. In the said application, he impleaded the petitioner herein as 4th respondent though he was not impleaded as a party defendant to the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party defendant to the suit, the impugned order granting police aid as against the petitioner is improper and irregular. If the 1st respondent was apprehending interference by the petitioner, he ought to have impleaded the petitioner as a party defendant to the suit before seeking any order against him and without impleading the petitioner as a party defendant, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No. 26 of 2010 impleading the petitioner as 4th respondent and obtained order of police aid against the petitioner as well, which is improper and irregular. The impugned order granting police aid in favour of the 1st respondent in view of the interim injunction granted earlier in his favour, which is in force, cannot be assailed. However, passing the said order of police aid as against the petitioner herein is unsustainable as the petitioner is not a party defendant to the suit. In that view of the matter, the impugned order granting police aid is vacated in so far as the petitioner is concerned. However, it is open to the petitioner to implead the petitioner as a party defendant to the suit and seek appropriate remedy against him. It is also open to the petitioner to get himself impleaded as a party to the suit and seek appropriate remedy available under law. The C.R.P. is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY. C.R.P.No. 4216 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 29.12.2010.