IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2009 Between: Avula Ilaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1.Poshaboina Sailu and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Bankatlal Mandhani Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following : ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by Order, dated 23-06- 2009, in I.A.No.573 of 2009 in I.A.No.166 of 2008 in O.S.No.121 of 2008, passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 2008, which was filed for perpetual injunction. After obtaining ex parte ad-interim injunction order in I.A.No.166 of 2008, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1092 of 2008 seeking Police Aid, which was rejected by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, vide Order, dated 27-01-2009. But, on the same date, ex parte ad-interim injunction earlier granted in I.A.No.166 of 2008 was made absolute. Subsequently, I.A.No.573 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff alleging that the respondents/defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and that it is necessary to grant Police aid for implementation of ad-interim injunction order, dated 27- 01-2009, in I.A.No.166 of 2008. But, the Court below, by recording the reasons, rejected the same on 23rd June, 2009. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that inasmuch as there was interference by the respondents-defendants on 03-05-2009, which is subsequent to dismissal of I.A.No.1092 of 2008, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.573 of 2009 seeking Police aid and that the Court below ought not to have rejected the same by applying the principles of res judicata as contemplated under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). It is further submitted that in view of the ad-interim injunction order, which was made absolute, grant of Police aid to the petitioner/plaintiff is obligatory for implementation of the same. Though there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents/defendants, in spite of notice sent by the petitioner/plaintiff, in the counter-affidavit filed by them before the Court below, it is stated that under the guise of ad- interim injunction order, the petitioner/plaintiff trespassed into their land and that a case was also registered against him in Crime No.60 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 437 read with Section 34 IPC. However, in the impugned order, it was also recorded that no material was placed by the petitioner/plaintiff in support of his plea that there was an obstruction by the respondents/defendants on 03-05-2009 from cultivating his land and that if there is any violation as such, it is always open for the petitioner to move an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC. In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Court below, it cannot be said that the impugned Order is either illegal or arbitrary so as to interfere with the same in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, as recorded by the Court below, if there is any violation of the ad-interim injunction order, dated 27-01- 2009, in I.A.No.166 of 2008 by the respondents/defendants, it is always open to the petitioner/plaintiff to move an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 10th August, 2009 lur