THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2776 OF 2010 DATED: 18-06-2010 Between: Podilapu Appalaswamy & 3 others. ..... PETITIONERS And Podilapu Sureedu (died) & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10-10-2007, in E.A.No.1069 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein, seeking police aid, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment- debtor and the respondent-decree-holder. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 1992 against the respondents herein for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the said suit was decreed granting permanent injunction as prayed for. It is also not disputed that the petitioners herein filed A.S.No.95 of 1999 and the same was dismissed by the District Court, Vizianagaram on 20-12-1985. Subsequently, respondents herein filed E.A.No.1069 of 2007 seeking grant of police aid for protection of their rights in the plaint schedule property. The said application was allowed by the Court below and a direction was issued to the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram Rural police station to render police aid to the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Court below allowed E.A.No.1069 of 2007 without even ordering notice of the application to be served on the petitioners herein and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. As seen from the impugned order, no notice appears to have been ordered or served on the petitioners herein in E.A.No.1069 of 2007 and the impugned order also does not disclose whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners herein. After perusing the application filed by the respondents and on hearing the learned counsel for the respondents herein, the Court below passed the impugned order straightaway. Such a course is impermissible as the petitioners herein are entitled for an opportunity of being heard before any order is passed against them, detrimental to their interest. 5. In a decision reported in KANNEBOINA NAGESHWAR RAO v. POTLA SOORAMMA & OTHERS[1] , this Court in a similar situation, while granting police aid, held that the order, allowing the application for police protection without notice to the respondents therein, was not proper. 6. In the above case also, decree was passed for perpetual injunction. E.P. was filed for execution of the said decree and in the said E.P., an application seeking police aid, was filed alleging that the Judgment-debtors therein were violating the decree for injunction. This Court held at paragraph 8 as follows: “Whatever be the circumstances under which I.A.No.35 of 2006 came to be filed or numbered, there does not exist any justification for the learned Judge, to have allowed the same on the same day, that too without ensuring that the respondents therein are served with notices. In case there existed any impending urgency, the trial Court could have directed the first respondent herein to take urgent notice to the respondents in the I.A. In a grave situation, it could have even passed orders protecting the interests of both the parties, pending service of notice, posting the I.A. to a later date. Once the I.A. was allowed by granting police protection, the trial Court had shut its doors for the respondents therein, and prevented them from narrating their point of view. The whole episode was unfortunate and the trial Court was required to be cautious and careful in dealing with such delicate matters. The Presiding Officer shall ensure that such instances do not recur in future”. 7. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, which is passed without notice to the petitioners herein and opportunity of hearing not having been granted to them, is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below with a direction to dispose of the same afresh, after giving notice to the petitioners herein on the application and giving an opportunity of hearing to them. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th June, 2010. Tsy [1] 2006 (3) APLJ 364 (HC)