HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5395 of 2009 DATE:08.12.2009 Between: Boya Ganganna and another … Petitioners And Perike Janaki Ramulu and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5395 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, in I.A.No.410 of 2009 in I.A.No.343 of 2009 in O.S.No.99 of 2009 allowing the said application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking police protection for effective implementation of the ad interim injunction granted in I.A.No.343 of 2009 by an order dated 29.04.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein instituted O.S.No.99 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 12 herein for perpetual injunction along with I.A.No.343 of 2009 for interim injunction. The court below, while ordering notices in the suit, granted an ad interim injunction by an order dated 29.04.2009 in favour of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, as the petitioners and respondents 2 to 12 are interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.410 of 2009 in I.A.No.343 of 2009 in O.S.No.99 of 2009 seeking police protection for effective implementation of the ad interim injunction orders. The court below, having heard both sides, by an order dated 05.10.2009, allowed I.A.No.343 of 2009 making absolute the ad interim injunction orders dated 29.04.2009. On the same day, the court below also allowed I.A.No.410 of 2009 directing the Station House Officer, Addakal Police Station to provide police aid to the 1st respondent for implementing the ad interim injunction orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that challenging the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the court below in I.A.No.343 of 2009 in O.S.No.99 of 2009, the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mahabubnagar, but even before disposing of the appeal, the 1st respondent, with the aid of the police, is trying to destroy the standing crop raised by the petitioners in the land in dispute. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the court below in I.A.No.410 of 2009 granting police aid, is not appealable and the remedy available is to approach this Court by way of filing a revision petition under Section 115 CPC. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the court below in I.A.No.410 of 2009 providing police protection is not appealable and the remedy is only by way of approaching this Court and file a revision as provided for under Section 115 of CPC. But, before entertaining the revision, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should have approached the learned District Judge, Mahabubnagar, before whom the appeal is pending, and sought for early disposal of the appeal, so that further litigation can be avoided. Instead of doing so, the petitioners straight away approached this Court and filed the present revision. 6. Now, since the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 05.10.2009 in I.A.No.343 of 2009 is very much pending with the learned District Judge, Mahabubnagar, he is hereby directed to dispose of appeal, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th December, 2009 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5395 of 2009 (Disposed of) 8th December, 2009 CBS