THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.4615 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 9.9.2011 passed by the court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.752/2011 in I.A.No.1167/2009 in O.S.No.802/2009, in granting police aid to the plaintiff, the present revision is filed. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction from restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the construction of the house in the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained an interim injunction by order dated 26.4.2011 in I.A.No.1167/2009. Complaining that the defendants are interfering with the construction highhandedly and that though she approached the police, they did not register the case, she filed the present I.A., seeking police protection and by the impugned order, the same was allowed. 4. From the material on record, it could be seen that the against the ad interim injunction order dated 26.4.2011 granted by the court below, the defendants did not prefer any appeal. In this I.A., the defendants sought to contend that the possession certificate of the plaintiff is fabricated and they were issued with the possession certificates. The court below prima facie satisfied with the possession of the plaintiff and considering the balance of convenience, granted ad interim injunction. Further, in the present I.A., the court below found that there are discrepancies in the possession certificates issued by the Tahsildar in favor of the defendants. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are interfering with her construction in the plaint schedule property, in spite of the interim injunction orders of the court and that though she approached the police, they did not register the complaint for want of direction from the court. The court below after satisfying itself with regard to the facts and circumstances, and in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, granted police protection. 5. A learned single Judge of this court in NEETHA CHINTAWAR v. BODUGAM GOPI[1], where the trial court refused to grant police protection on the allegations of violation of the interim injunction granted by the court, held that civil courts shall ensure that orders of temporary injunction passed by them are respected and implemented by the concerned either by granting police aid sought or in proceedings instituted under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C., to uphold the dignity and effectiveness of institution of judiciary. The relevant facts and the laid down by the learned single Judge, is extracted as under: “ 6 Keeping aside the grammatical disorder, it is difficult to approve the view taken by the trial court. Once an order of temporary injunction was granted by the trial court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., after haring both the parties, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the suit schedule property is not in the possession of the petitioners. The very grant of an order of temporary injunction pre-supposes that the Court is satisfied as to the prima facie possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and as to the balance of convenience in according protection for such possession, pending disposal of the suit. If the defendant in a suit is aggrieved by the grant of such an order, the only course open to him would be to prefer an appeal and if necessary, pursue the further remedy of revision etc. Having suffered an order of temporary injunction, the defendant cannot be permitted to plead that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 7. The second observation made by the trial Court is equally untenable. For all practical purposes, it had annulled the order of temporary injunction granted by it rendered it ineffective. It hardly needs any emphasis that an order of temporary injunction would require the parties to it, to abide by the directions contained in it. Though, it is competent for a plaintiff to institute proceedings under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2-A of Order 39 C.P.C., if the defendant commits breach of the order of temporary injunction, he can also approach the court, for police protection. In such an event, the Courts are under obligation to accord necessary protection. By ordering such applications, the Courts would not be extending any favour to the parties, but would be taking steps for effective implementation of their own orders and thereby, upholding the dignity and effectiveness of the institution of Judiciary. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S. SANTHOSHNAGAR (1982(2) ALT 161) held that it would be incumbent upon the civil courts to ensure that the orders of temporary injunction passed by them are respected and implemented by the concerned. In the cases of P.Shanker Rao v. B.Susheela (2002(2) ALT 606), this court reiterated the said legal position. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law.” 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- ---- 16—11—2011 [1] 2006(4) ALT 660