HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No.1630 of 2010 Order: This revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.10.2009 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narispatnam, made in I.A. No. 531 of 2009 in I.A. No. 98 of 2004 in O.S. No. 49 of 2004. I.A. No. 531 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein, under Section 151 of C.P.C. to provide police aid for a period of four days so as to enable him to raise a form shed in the petition schedule land. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., referred to above, the petitioner has stated that the Court below, on 30.6.2004 had granted temporary injunction against the respondent. Thereafter, he again filed I.A. No. 569 of 2004 seeking to grant police aid, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 6.2.2009. Pursuant thereto, he approached the Makavarapalem police seeking police aid, who advised him to approach the Court below. Hence, he filed the present I.A. seeking to provide police aid. While opposing the I.A., the respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the various allegations levelled by the petitioner. The Court below while taking into account the fact that the petitioner was earlier granted temporary injunction in I.A. No.98 of 2004 restraining the respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit and also the contention of the respondent that under the guise of the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner is trying to construct a form shed, declined to provide police aid, more especially, during the pendency of the dispute between the parties. It also found that there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent had tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property, pursuant to the order of temporary injunction granted earlier. So holding, it dismissed the I.A. through the impugned order. It is well settled that this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, shall not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below, more so, in matters seeking police protection. The Court below has passed a reasoned order giving cogent reasons as to why the police protection, as sought for, cannot be granted. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the fact that the suit in O.S. No.49 of 2004 is pending for a long time, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 25th June, 2010 pnb