IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1158 OF 2009 Between: Nagojappa ..... PETITIONER AND Nagaraju .... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1158 OF 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Anantapur District. The main suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/revision petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2004 in I.A.No.284 of 2004. Though the defendant preferred C.M.A.No.1 of 2005, the same was dismissed by the appellate Court on 31.10.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.183 of 2008 in O.S.No.72 of 2004 with a prayer to grant necessary police protection, alleging that in spite of injunction order, the defendant was causing trouble to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said petition was opposed by the defendant denying the allegations made and the Court below after hearing both the parties, by order dated 19.12.2008, dismissed I.A.No.183 of 2008. Hence, the present revision petition filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record. Despite notice, the respondent/defendant did not choose to appear. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.183 of 2008 shows that the only plea raised by the petitioner was that in spite of injunction order, the defendant was causing trouble to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The allegation itself was vague and there was no evidence to substantiate the same. On the basis of such a vague plea which was not supported by any other evidence, the Court below declined to grant the police aid. The said discretion exercised by the Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be held to have suffered from any perversity or unreasonableness warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 06.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd