IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3557 of 2011 Between: Munemma and another .. Petitioners AND Uppari Muneppa .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The respondent was claimed by the learned counsel to have been personally served with the notice ordered on 02-09- 2011 and that copies of the notice were also served on the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the trial Court for information. The name of the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent was also being shown in the cause list on the dates of hearing and the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that his efforts to serve copies of the material papers on the learned counsel for the caveator were futile. Though the matter is posted for orders to today, none represented the respondent like on the last occasion. The civil revision petition is directed against the order granting police aid for implementation of the order of injunction granted in I.A. No.293 of 2009 in O.S. No.132 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, dated 30-11-2009. The trial Court considered the allegation of the respondent herein about interference with his possession of the suit schedule property by the revision petitioners herein in spite of the temporary injunction and a denial by the revision petitioners herein of any such efforts by them. The revision petitioners claimed that in fact, there was a reverse attack on 12-04-2010 and that the date of interference mentioned as 02-08-2009 in the petition was before grant of the injunction. The trial Court passed the impugned order firstly noting that the date of interference mentioned in the petition was stated to be a typographical error. The trial Court having referred to the injunction being granted on merits after a deep consideration of the questions in controversy, felt it to be the bounden duty of the Court to see the implementation of the order of injunction when it comes to its notice that the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The said order is challenged in this revision contending that in the absence of any indication in the affidavit in support of the petition as to when the alleged violation had taken place and when no reasonable cause of action for grant of police aid could be discernable from the averments of the petition, the grant of police protection after lapse of two years after grant of temporary injunction is not called for. Hence, the revision petitioners desired the order to be reversed. The order of interim injunction was granted on 30-11-2009 in I.A. No.293 of 2009 in O.S. No.132 of 2009 and the petition for grant of police aid was filed on 26-08-2010. The affidavit in support of the application stated about an incident of interference on 02-08-2009, which was stated to be a typographical error for 02-08-2010. Some other persons who are said to have been accompanying the revision petitioners herein, were not named or identified and how the attempts of the revision petitioners and the other persons to enter into the suit land could be resisted by the respondent herein, was not elaborated. If in spite of such an attempt, the respondent’s possession could not be disturbed, the same may not be so serious as to call for interference by the uniformed men. Even otherwise, as to why suddenly the revision petitioners took recourse to such interference after more than 9 months after the grant of injunction, is unintelligible and unnatural. Violently stated vague allegations cannot be a substitute, for probablising such allegations, to dependable oral or documentary evidence and in the counter filed on behalf of the revision petitioners herein, the revision petitioners claimed the request for police aid to be an obvious cover up for the incident in crime No.46 of 2010 relating to an attack on the 2nd revision petitioner on 12- 04-2010 resulting in severe injuries on his person. The trial Court straight away accepted the alleged interference on the affidavit of the respondent without probing into and analyzing the conflicting allegations and circumstances and the remedy of grant of police aid for implementation of an order of injunction is not a matter of course, but a matter of inevitable necessity only when the facts call for it. The order granting police aid does not appear to be based on any satisfactory material placed before the Court and the order, therefore, has to be set aside with effect from the date of this order. However, this will not preclude the plaintiff from seeking any such appropriate relief from the trial Court in aid of implementation of the order of injunction granted in I.A. No.293 of 2009 so long as such order is in force, if the facts and circumstances justify such a request, which request may be considered by the trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed without costs and the order in I.A. No.131 of 2011 in O.S. No.132 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal, dated 02-07- 2011 is set aside. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-09-2011 Svv