- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3055/2009 Martand Govindrao Patil, age 63 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Mauje Bhone Budruk Tq.Dharangaon Dist.Jalgaon. ...Petitioner.. (Org.deft.no.1) Versus Smt.Smita Satish Palkar, age 49 yrs., occu.household, r/o Ekta Residence, High Court Colony, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad. Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondent... (Org.plaintiff) ..... Shri Hemant Surve, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.P. Patil, Advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 05.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] Heard counsel for the parties. - 2 - 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – original defendant no.1 challenges the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dharangaon, below Exhibit 62 in RCS No.268/2008. The respondent – org.plaintiff filed RCS No.268/2008 for perpetual injunction against petitioner not to disturb her possession in respect of land situated at Mauje Bhone (Bk.) Tq.Dharangaon Dist.Jalgaon, on Gut No.112 admeasuring 4 H 30 R and Pot Kharaba land admeasuring 18 R. In the said suit, the respondent preferred application (Exh.6 in the suit) for injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing her possession in respect of the suit property. The said Exhibit 6 came to be allowed by the trial Court on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, the respondent filed application (Exh. 62 in the said suit) on 20.3.2009 for Police protection on 22.3.2009 for carrying out agricultural activities in her field. The said application (Exh. 62) was allowed by the trial Court on 6.4.2009 directing the concerned Police Station to provide the respondent Police protection as per her application. 4] Instead of going into merits of the matter, on the face of it, it is clear that the respondent asked Police protection for 22.3.2009 only and the same was allowed by the trial Court. Nowhere it is stated in the said order that as and when the respondent – org.plaintiff requires Police protection, the same should be provided to her. Considering these facts, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C), which reads as under: “After examining the legality, validity, propriety, justness, correctness and utility of the impugned judgment and verdict passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharangaon, below Exh.62 in Regular Civil Suit No.268/2008 dated 6.4.2009, the said decision may kindly be reversed and the application of the plaintiffs – respondent - 3 - no.1 herein, seeking police protection during pendency of the suit, may kindly be ordered to be rejected with costs.” It is made clear that the respondent – org.plaintiff is at liberty to file fresh application as and when occasion arises for the same. (K.K. Tated, J.) ndk/c590911