THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Civil Revision Petition No.1761 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 01.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2009 in I.A.No.737 of 2007 in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District whereby the petition filed under section 151 C.P.C. by the respondent herein seeking police aid for his protection was allowed. 2 The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as follows: The respondent herein filed O.S.No.154 of 2007 before the court below and made I.A.No.737 of 2007 therein for temporary injunction and the said petition was allowed on 28.11.2007. As against the said orders the petitioners 4 to 8 herein preferred an appeal to the learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni vide CMA No.50 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 19.1.2009. On 15.7.2009 at about 10.00 AM the petitioners herein highhandedly made attempt to trespass into the petition schedule property and dug the land by force and violated the orders of the trial court. The respondent, with great difficulty, resisted the acts of the petitioners. Thereupon the petitioners threatened the respondent and stated that they would come again. Hence he filed the petition seeking police aid for his protection. As stated supra, the trial court allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents in the said petition filed the present revision. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent is not in possession of the property and hence question of granting police aid does not arise and hence the order impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside. 4 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the competent civil court has given interim injunction in favour of the respondent and the same has been confirmed in CMA and also in CRP No.2910 of 2009 by this court. He further contended that as the petitioners are interfering with the possession of the respondent over the schedule property the trial court has rightly granted police aid to the respondent and hence the order impugned in this revision does not warrant any interference by this court. 5 As seen from the record, the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent has become final because the appellate court as well as the revisional court confirmed the order of injunction. Now the present petition is filed when the petitioners and others tried to trespass into the petition schedule land and dug the land and violated the injunction order. Further, the respondent is said to have lodged a complaint with the police. Therefore, the allegation in the affidavit, prima facie, discloses that there is interference by the petitioners with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the schedule mentioned property. So in view of the fact that the petitioners herein were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, the trial court has rightly granted police aid to the respondent, which in my considered opinion needs no interference since there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this revision. 6 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit itself in accordance with law expeditiously after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 15.07.2011 Kvsn