IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI C.R.P.No. 3795 OF 2010 Between Sharfun Bi … Petitioner V/s. S.M.Nasir Sab … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CRP.NO. 3795 OF 2010. O R D E R : The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in OS.No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. Pending the suit the plaintiff also sought temporary injunction by filing I.A.No. 298 of 2003 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. After hearing both sides, the Court below granted temporary injunction as prayed for and the said order has become final. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 924 of 2009 in OS.No. 99 of 2003 with a prayer to grant police aid so as to enable her to protect the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The Court below after hearing both the parties allowed I.A.No. 924 of 2009 by order dated 22-6-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that under the guise of the injunction order, the plaintiff was trying to occupy the defendant’s site for the purpose of construction of shops and therefore the Court below ought not to have granted police aid. I do not find any substance in the said contention since in the order under Revision the directions were issued to grant necessary protection to the plaintiff to enforce the order of temporary injunction in I.A.No. 298 of 2003 dated 22-9-2005 i.e., in respect of the suit schedule property only. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. However, having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, it is made clear that the police protection granted in the order under Revision shall be confined only to the suit schedule property. Subject to the above clarification, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE G. ROHINI 30/8/2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CRP.No. 3795 OF 2010 30/8/2010 I s L