IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4274 of 2009 Between: Peddi Laxmi .. Petitioner AND Peddi Kumar and others .. Respondents Revision against the order dated 18-08-2009 in I.A. No.447 of 2009 in O.S. No.167 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak District. The revision petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the material in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri G. Anandam, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: The refusal of the trial Court to grant police protection for implementation of the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, led the unsuccessful plaintiff to file the present civil revision petition against the order in I.A. No.447 of 2009 in O.S. No.167 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, dated 18-08-2009. The factual background for the revision is that the suit was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and I.A. No.469 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction pending the suit against the respondents/defendants. Interim injunction was granted by the trial Court and thereafter the petitioner/plaintiff applied through this application for police protection against the respondents. The request was resisted contending that the documentary material produced by the learned counsel for the respondents indicates that the identity of the land claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff is not certain and is in dispute. The trial Court noted that the interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff was one granted ex parte not on merits and in fact, a commissioner was appointed in the suit for measurement of the suit land and the commissioner’s report is awaited. Therefore, the trial Court felt that as there is a dispute about the identity of the suit land and as the plaintiff herself does not know where her land is situated, there is every possibility of the petitioner/plaintiff likely to encroach on the land of the respondents under the guise of police protection and the police also will not be able to identify the suit land and therefore, any grant of police protection at that stage was opined by the trial Court to be capable of creating multiplicity of litigation. Hence, it was concluded that the plaintiff be at liberty to file a petition for similar relief after measurement of the land by the advocate commissioner and not at that stage. The plaintiff seeks to have the said order reversed through this revision petition contending that once interim injunction was granted for the plaintiff, granting assistance in implementation of the order of injunction granted by this Court would be a natural consequence. Any confusion about the location and identification of the property in dispute is non-existent, as the plaintiff substantiated her possession and enjoyment over the suit property through other evidence. The appointment of commissioner to localize the suit property is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court and at any rate, it cannot be linked with grant of police protection. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the respondents. The claim that the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff was an ex parte order and not an order on merits, is not in dispute, though even an ex parte order is as much a judicial order as contested order. It is also seen from the record that on 22-06-2009, the trial Court passed an order in I.A. No.469 of 2008 in the petition for grant of interim injunction that the record showed that an advocate commissioner was appointed at the instance of the respondents/defendants to demarcate the lands of both parties, but still on the basis of the material produced by the plaintiff/petitioner, the status quo order granted earlier on 27-08- 2008 was converted into an order of interim injunction. It is further seen that the trial Court itself realized later that the basis on which the said order on 22-06-2009 was passed noting that the respondents failed to pay the commissioner’s fee, was factually incorrect and in fact, on the very first date of hearing, the respondents/defendants deposited commissioner’s fee into Court. Apart from the trial Court, thus, finding the premise on which the status quo order was converted into an order of interim injunction to be factually incorrect, the trial Court also extensively referred to various documents relied on by the parties, which necessitated a further probe into the identification of the suit schedule property before determining that in whose possession, prima facie, the land was, by the date of the suit. The conclusions of the trial Court in this regard cannot be faulted ex facie and what all the trial Court did was only to make the petitioner wait till receipt of the commissioner’s report by the trial Court before seeking any police assistance in implementation of the interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. While the plaintiff/petitioner will be, thus, at liberty to approach the trial Court with the same request after the report of the commissioner is received and after any objections on such commissioner’s report are received, any impropriety, unreasonableness or illegality in the impugned order is not discernible and the order cannot be interfered with herein. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed subject to such liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to renew his request at an appropriate time after filing of the commissioner’s report before the trial Court. No costs. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-12-2009 Svv