1 wp 6738.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6738 OF 2011 1. Ramchandra S/o Khandu Pandharkar, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Chandrabhaga W/o Ramchandra Pandharkar, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., Both R/o Pandharkarwadi, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Pandurang S/o Mhasku Lokhande, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chikhali, Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune. 2. Popat S/o Namdeo Pandharkar, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Agril., 3. Ashok S/o Ramchandra Pandharkar, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Agril., 4. Balu S/o Ramchandra Pandharkar, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Agril., 5. Jijabai W/o Ashok Pandharkar, Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Household, 2 wp 6738.11 6. Deepali W/o Balu Pandharkar, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Agril., The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 R/o Pandharkarwadi, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri Balaji Shinde, Advocate h/f Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. S. Bedre, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2/original plaintiffs have filed a suit. In the said suit they have claimed temporary injunction. The Trial Court has clamped injunction against the present petitioners. The said order is confirmed upto this Court. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application Exhibit 34 for police aid invoking Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court has allowed the same. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 3 wp 6738.11 3. Heard Shri Balaji Shinde, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri V. S. Bedre, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. It is contended by Shri Bedre, the learned counsel for the original plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have filed on record the complaints made by the plaintiffs to the police authorities from time to time and thereafter the Court having satisfied has passed the impugned order. The grant of police aid was necessary, so as to avoid the loss of the crop which was cultivated. The Court has taken into consideration all the complaints on record and thereafter, has passed the order. 5. The order of police aid is an extreme step. The same cannot be granted for asking. Perusal of the order it is manifest that the learned Trial Judge has nowhere considered any of the complaints filed by the plaintiffs. It has not discussed about those aspects. No overt acts on the part of the petitioners are discussed. The police aid could not have been granted in such a casual manner. Shri Bedre, the learned counsel contends that all the evidence about overt acts was placed on record before the Trial Court. The order does not show any such aspect being 4 wp 6738.11 considered. As such the order cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The original plaintiffs are at liberty to file a fresh application if the circumstances justify and along with all the necessary documents and evidence in this regard. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits after giving an opportunity to petitioners. Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. 6. Needless to state the observations are only meant for deciding the present petition. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11