IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.2490 & 2491 of 2010 C.R.P.No.2490 of 2010 Between: Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner AND Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Respondent C.R.P.No.2491 of 2010 Between: Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner AND Sakhamuri Narasimha Rao .. Respondent COMMON ORDER: Both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of identical orders granting police protection to the respective plaintiffs for implementing the orders of interim injunction granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The petitions for grant of police protection by both the plaintiffs respectively in O.S.Nos.467 of 2009 and 468 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kothagudem, were on the ground that notwithstanding the grant of temporary injunctions in favour of respective plaintiffs, the defendant and his father trespassed into the properties and stopped the respective plaintiffs from proceeding with the construction of compound wall for the properties in dispute. The defendant resisted the request claiming that he filed Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court against the grant of temporary injunctions and in fact, his possession and enjoyment is being interfered with by the respective plaintiffs. The trial Court, on consideration of the rival contentions and referring to the evidence and precedents on the aspect whereby the inherent powers of the Court to grant necessary protection in aid of the interim orders granted are considered, held that it is necessary to grant police protection in order to protect the possession and enjoyment of the respective plaintiffs over the respective properties and enable to implement the orders of interim injunctions granted on merits. The defendant filed both the revision petitions contending that in view of pendency of C.R.P.Nos.120 and 121 of 2010 before this Court for adjudication, grant of police protection is illegal, more so, as the circumstances show that the respective plaintiffs were not in possession of the properties. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revision petitions are heard. C.R.P.Nos.120 and 121 of 2010 are disposed of vide separate orders today and both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed without costs confirming the interim injunctions granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court in both the matters. In view of confirmation by the Appellate Court of the temporary injunctions granted in favour of the respective plaintiffs, if there is any interference with the implementation of the said orders of temporary injunctions in force, the trial Court would be justified in granting the necessary protection in accordance with the precedents, which are cited in the impugned orders and therefore, the said orders cannot be considered to be illegal or irregular in any manner warranting interference by this Court. In view of the result of C.R.P.Nos.120 and 121 of 2010, these two Civil Revision Petitions also have to necessarily fail. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-11-2010 Ksn