IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 of 2010 Between: Chirraboinini Pedda Maraiah & 4 others .. Revision Petitioners AND Cherraboina Ilamma .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.533 of 2010 in O.S.No.270 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, dated 27.10.2010, by which the trial Court directed the Station House Officer, Narayanpur Police Station, to provide police aid to the plaintiff, if she approaches the police for such aid on collection of usual charges as per the rules in force. 2. The plaintiff claimed that in spite of the interim injunction granted on 21.06.2007, the defendants are indulging in interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. The defendants denied any such allegations, as the suit land is ancestral and undivided joint family property. The trial Court considered that the defendants should not have had any objection for grant of police aid if they were really not trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. 3. Though the plaintiff was served with notice of this Civil Revision Petition before admission, none entered appearance on her behalf and consequently, Smt. S. Annapurna, learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard. 4. The learned counsel referred to ABDUL SUKHURE BHAI VS. DURAI KUPPUSWAMY[1], wherein the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court opined that at the stage of granting interim injunction, police protection is not to be ordered simultaneously as it has got serious consequences. When the entire materials are not before the Court and the defendants have not entered appearance, the Court is not appraised of the reliefs according to the learned Judge and the possibility of the party being armed with the order of police protection, trying to take advantage of the order and dispossessing the person who is in actual possession was noticed. 5. However, situation in the present suit presents a different situation as the order of grant of police aid was in the presence of and after going through the pleadings of and after hearing both parties, though the interim injunction itself was stated to have been granted ex parte before the appearance of the defendants. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that the petition for interim injunction has not been decided on merits so far, notwithstanding the appearance of the defendants and their contesting the matter and further notwithstanding the statutory mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to make every endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty (30) days from the date on which the order of injunction was granted, where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party. Therefore, interest of justice will be best served in the present suit if the trial Court were to be directed to dispose of the injunction petition on merits at the earliest possible opportunity having already violated the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, instead of interfering with the order of police protection granted as long back as on 27.10.2010, more so in the light of the contentions of the revision petitioners that they were not making any illegal efforts concerning the suit schedule property in the meanwhile. 6. Consequently, without going into the merits of the rival contentions concerning the suit property, appropriate directions have to be issued accordingly, while noting that the order granting police aid is not beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court, if the circumstances so warrant. 7. Therefore, the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, is directed to dispose of I.A.No.646 of 2007 in O.S.No.270 of 2007, on its file on merits in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, ordered without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th January, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. within three (3) days. (B/o) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6154 of 2010 Date: 28th January, 2010 KL [1] AIR 2006 MADRAS 186