( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9844 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2007 Chintaman s/o. Namdeo Patil .. Applicant Versus Sukhdeo s/o. Namdeo Patil and Anr. .. Respondents Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. DATED : 26.11.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application filed by the respondent in the appeal/original plaintiff seeking police aid in implementation of the order of injunction passed against present non-applicants. 2. Shri Patni, learned Counsel for the applicant states that earlier vide order dated 19.09.2005, the Trial Court had granted police aid to the present applicant. But, ( 2 ) this Court vide order dated 07.01.2008 in Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2005 had set aside the said order and had granted liberty to the applicant to move an application in the Second Appeal, if the need so arises for the police aid. The order dated 19.09.2005 was set aside by this Court in said Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2005 on the ground that in view of the order passed earlier in the said writ petition, the subsequent application was not maintainable. No doubt, in the said writ petition, liberty is granted to the present applicant to move an application in the pending Second Appeal, for seeking police aid. Mr. Patni, learned Counsel says that in view of the said liberty, he has moved the present application and also because of the fact that the non-applicants are not allowing him to cultivate his land despite the order of injunction being in force. 3. Shri Palodkar, learned Counsel states that in the Second Appeal, the order of injunction is not stayed and the applicant has remedy of executing the order of injunction, if need so arises and has prayed for rejection of the application. ( 3 ) 4. I have gone through the application, affidavit-in- reply so also the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2005. Earlier order passed by the Trial Court dated 19.09.2005 granting police aid was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6744 of 2005 on account of the fact that the Trial Court could not have passed the said order in the teeth of the order dated 20th July, 2005, passed by the High Court in the said writ petition. On that count it was dismissed. Though liberty was granted to the applicant to file application in the pending Second appeal, I feel, it would not be appropriate to entertain said application in the present Second Appeal. It is not disputed that the order of injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court has not been stayed by this Court. The order of injunction can be executed by the applicant in light of provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the C.P.C. There would not be any impediment for the Executing Court to consider the prayer for granting police aid on its own merit. 5. In light of above observations, I am not inclined to entertain the present application but would relegate the applicant to file proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 of the ( 4 ) C.P.C. or such other proceedings as are permissible in law. In case, said proceedings are undertaken by the applicant, the concerned Court would deal with the same on its own merit, in accordance with law and taking into account the time lapsed on account of present proceedings. 6. I have not entertained the present application only on the ground that it would not be appropriate to grant relief to a respondent in the Second Appeal and has not observed anything on the merits of the application. 7. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] snk/2010/NOV10/ca9844.10