THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3216 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 15.06.2009, in I.A.No.250 of 2009 in I.A.No.370 of 2007 in O.S.No.132 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy District, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 CPC, seeking police aid, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land. Respondent-plaintiff also filed I.A.No.370 of 2007 for temporary injunction. Petitioners- defendants filed written statement in the suit and a counter in I.A.No.370 of 2007. After hearing both sides, I.A.No.370 of 2007 was allowed on 17.07.2007 on merits. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.254 of 2007on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. Meanwhile, respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.250 of 2009, seeking grant of police aid for protection of his possession pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.370 of 2007. By the impugned order, the said application was allowed granting police aid. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the C.M.A. was pending by the date of filing I.A.No.250 of 2009 and therefore the trial Court ought not to have granted police protection. He would further contend that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to file a counter in I.A.No.250 of 2009. 5. It is stated that subsequent to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition, C.M.A was dismissed and the order of injunction granted on 17.07.2007 in I.A.No.370 of 2007 has attained finality. The impugned order shows that on that day, respondent was absent and his counsel was also absent and no representation was made on behalf of the respondent and in spite of subsequent direction given on 08.06.2009, no counter was filed by the respondent though the Court waited till 5.00 p.m. It is only thereafter that the impugned order came to be passed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity was given to oppose the application is therefore untenable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier the respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.742 of 2002 for the same relief and the said application was dismissed on merits on 19.12.2007. 7. It is to be noted that the cause of action for filing the two applications, one in 2007 and subsequently in 2009, is distinct and separate. The dismissal of the earlier application-I.A.No.742 of 2007 does not therefore come in the way of filing a fresh application in the event of there being any interference with the plaintiff’s possession by the defendants. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order granting police aid is not liable to be interfered with, especially as the said order was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioners-defendants to oppose and the same was not availed of by them and in view of the fact that the C.M.A. filed by the petitioners- defendants came to be dismissed and thereafter the order granting injunction in I.A.No.370 of 2007 attained finality. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year, 2007 and is also one for injunction, the learned Junior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the same at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 05th September, 2011. Tsy