IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No : 3446 of 2009 Between: Syed Masood Pasha and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND S.Satya Kalyan and others. .....RESPONDENTS Order: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 04.06.2009, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1367 of 2009 in I.A.No.514 of 2009 in O.S.No.300 of 2009. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit, being O.S.No.300 of 2009, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property and along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.514 of 2009 seeking ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners-defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6, and respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are defendant Nos.2 and 4, from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioners-defendants filed counter in the said IA. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the trial Court granted temporary injunction as prayed for vide orders, dated 26.03.2009 and the same is still subsisting. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent-plaintiff states that as the defendants in furtherance of their mala fide intention and with some ulterior motive tried to interfere with his possession, he lodged a complaint with the Shamshabad Police on 30.04.2009, in vain and therefore, he filed the present application, being I.A.No.1367 of 2009, along with an out of order application, seeking police aid. Through the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos1, 3, 5 and 6. The first respondent-plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners and stated that before passing the impugned order, the trial Court ordered notices to the defendants, which are served. The learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that without giving any notice to the first petitioner, namely, the first defendant, and without even intimating the date of hearing of the application to petitioner Nos.2 to 4, defendant Nos.3, 5 and 6, (though they are served with notice), through the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application. As the trial Court failed to observe as to whether all the defendants were served with notice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent- plaintiff sought to sustain the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Perused the material on record. The main contention put forth by the petitioners before this Court is that without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the trial Court passed the impugned order. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application filed along with the CRP seeking interim suspension of the impugned order, it is categorically stated by the petitioners themselves that a notice was issued by the first respondent- plaintiff to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on 01.06.2009 itself before filing of out of order petition and thereafter, on 02.06.2009, the present application was filed seeking police aid, along with an out of order petition. Subsequently, on 04.06.2009, after issuing notice to the defendants, the trial Court allowed the said application. Therefore, it cannot be said that no notice was issued to the petitioners-defendants. It is not in dispute that the interim injunction granted by the trial Court has been made absolute subsequently and is still subsisting. Be that as it may, once injunction is granted, it is the duty of the Court to see that the same is implemented without any hindrance and in furtherance thereof, the trial Court through the impugned order directed the S.H.O., Shamshabad P.S., Ranga Reddy District, to give necessary assistance to the first respondent-plaintiff for implementation of injunction order granted earlier. Therefore, this Court is of the considered of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:08.12.2009 VGB