IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.699 of 2011 Between: Md. Allauddin .. Petitioner AND P. Prakash Rao & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.699 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.221 of 2009 in I.A.No.36 of 2007 in O.S.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar District, dated 28.10.2010, whereby the request of the plaintiff in the suit for grant of police aid for implementation of the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.36 of 2007 was allowed. 2. The trial Court, in the impugned order, noted the claim of the plaintiff about being the leaseholder of a granite quarry in S.Nos.277, 278 and 279 of Jadcherla to an extent of 1.60 hectares and allegations of interference by the first defendant with his possession. The first defendant was also stated to have filed O.S.No.155 of 2009 in respect of S.No.278 and the first defendant did not contest the request for grant of police aid according to the impugned order and the trial Court considered that the closing of I.A.No.36 of 2007 on 12.12.2007 must be deemed to be continuing the earlier interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and for effective implementation of the said order of interim injunction, the trial Court considered grant of police aid to be necessary. 3. The first defendant is before this Court with this revision complaining against grant of police aid in respect of an order which is not in existence after the closure of the petition in I.A.No.36 of 2007 on 12.12.2007. Even otherwise, any implementation of the order of interim injunction is to be by taking recourse to the alternative remedy provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the belated petition for police aid after two years/three years is not bona fide. The first defendant had, in fact, filed his counter affidavit in the application, but the trial Court wrongly mentioned that he did not contest the plea and passed almost an ex parte order. Therefore, the first defendant desired the order to be reversed. 4. Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff. 5. The point for consideration is the justification for the grant of police aid and the manner in which the rights and interests of the parties have to be protected pending the suit. 6. It is not the grant of quarry lease to the plaintiff by the Government that is in question, but the alleged attempts to quarry in the private land of the first defendant that is claimed to have led to the dispute. The suit, on the conflicting claims of the parties, is pending adjudication before the trial Court and the order in I.A.No.36 of 2007, dated 12.12.2007, noted that the main suit was ripe for trial even by then, while the learned counsel for the parties stated that the trial of the suit has not commenced, notwithstanding the same being ripe for trial at such time. Admittedly, the original lease granted in favour of the plaintiff expired by 10.04.2011 as recorded by this Court on 30.03.2011 and any grant of police aid beyond 10.04.2011 would not have arisen unless the plaintiff secured an extension of lease. Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had applied for renewal of the lease and his application for such purpose is pending with the concerned Deputy Director of Mines not being ordered on merits so far, not withstanding the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5039 of 2011 directing the department to dispose of the application for renewal expeditiously at any rate before 31.03.2011. Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel also brought to notice Rule 13 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, under which the proviso provided for deeming the lease to have been extended till the renewal application is disposed of by the concerned Deputy Director. 7. It is further seen from the affidavit filed by the plaintiff himself herein that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology conducted survey of quarry lease in the presence of revenue officials, but could not identify the boundaries of the survey numbers which resulted in proposed joint survey on 28.03.2011 which could not be held. It is stated by the learned counsel for both parties that no such further survey has been held thereafter so far. It is seen from the material papers on record that the first defendant had, in fact, applied for directing the Assistant Director (Survey) to demarcate survey Nos.277, 278 and 279 of Jadcherla for fixation of boundaries, etc., which was being contested by the plaintiff and the said application is admittedly still pending. 8. The police aid granted by the impugned order continued to be in force, not being interfered with by any interim orders of this Court pending the civil revision petition, since 28.10.2010 and the prima facie opinion of the trial Court about the desirability of grant of police aid was stated to be based on some photographs produced before the Court. Without delving deep into those questions in controversy, the interests of justice can be best safeguarded by directing the trial Court to determine the interim application for conduct of survey at the earliest and also dispose of the suit on merits within a fixed time frame. 9. While it is true that I.A.No.36 of 2007 was ordered to be closed, the same may not have the effect of discontinuing the interim injunction granted earlier and if any authority is needed for the purpose, reference can be usefully made to S. KRISTAPPA VS. K. GOPALA CHARI AND OTHERS[1], relied on by Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the plaintiff. If the interim injunction was in force and the trial Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, has decided to grant police aid, instead of interfering with the same in the restricted exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, expediting a decision on the request for determination of the boundaries of the disputed lands and also the determination of the questions in controversy in the suit at the earliest point of time may be the appropriate course of action. 10. Therefore, the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar District, is directed to dispose of the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the first defendant for directing the Assistant Director (Survey) for demarcation of S. Nos.277, 278 and 279 of Jadcherla, etc., on merits in accordance law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties within one week from the date of communication of this order. The said Court is also directed to dispose of the main suit on merits in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce whatever oral and documentary evidence they desire to produce, within four (4) months from the date of communication of this order. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly, with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th August, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 18.08.2011 (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.699 of 2011 Date: 12th August, 2011 KL [1] 2005 (2) ALD 499