1 wp 6993.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6993 OF 2011 1. Sk. Nabi S/o Sk. Chand Qureshi, Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gadhejalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Khatunbee W/o Sk. Nabi Qureshi, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Gadhejalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioners Versus Sk. Hanif S/o Shaik Chand, Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gadhejalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondent Shri P. S. Mehata, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri U. P. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 wp 6993.11 2. The suit of the present respondent for perpetual injunction against the present petitioners came to be decreed. The present petitioners have filed Misc. application requiring judicial enquiry and there is delay in filing the said application. It is stated that the same is pending. The present respondent filed contempt petition bearing NO. 02 of 2011. In the said contempt petition the present respondent filed an application Exhibit 10 for police aid. The said application was filed on 02nd September, 2011 and on the same day it was allowed after calling the say of the present petitioners. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present respondent has filed on record the number of documents showing the complaints made by the respondents to the concern police station which shows the disobedience on the part of the petitioners, the fact that the injunction order is being flouted and obstruction is being created by the petitioners in the possession of the present respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that as the injunction is in force and the documents on record clearly shows the 3 wp 6993.11 obstruction on the part of the petitioners, the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application Exhibit 10. 5. No doubt, from the record it appears that the suit of the present respondent for perpetual injunction has been decreed and the contempt petition is filed. For grant of police aid mere decree of injunction in force is not sufficient, but something more is required i. e. the overt acts on the part of the petitioners. Perusing the impugned order it nowhere transpires the said aspect has been taken into consideration by the Trial Judge. It seems that the said application has been decided in haste. On the day the application is filed it is decided, without considering the case of either party. 6. In view of aforesaid facts the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 7. In the result I quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall decide the application Exhibit 10 filed in Contempt Petition No. 02/2011 afresh after giving opportunity to present petitioners as well as the respondent. 4 wp 6993.11 Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11