1 WP 8204.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8204 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.K.Chavan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.V.Rakh , Advocate for Resp. No. 1. ..................................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application [ Exh. 36 ] filed U/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of police aid. 2. Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has erroneously rejected the application. The injunction is operating against the present respondent. In view of the fact that the obstruction was being made, the application is filed for police aid. The petitioner has also filed Complaint after the decision of the instant application, which would also substantiate the contention of the petitioner. The 2 WP 8204.2011 learned counsel submits that the Court ought to have allowed the application for police aid as the facts on record necessitated the same. 3. Mr. Rakh, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the police aid can not be given for mere asking. The application is as vague as it can be. No grounds are made out for providing police aid and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application and the order. 5. The order of injunction is operating in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. It is also a trite law that the order for police aid can not be made for mere asking. The petitioner has to bring on record the circumstances entitling the said exigency. From the perusal of the application, it is manifest that no such circumstances are brought on record. The complaint which is produced on record is also subsequent to the order that has been passed. 6. In light of the above, no error has been committed while rejecting the application. Needless to state that as and when the occasion arises and the petitioner brings forth the 3 WP 8204.2011 circumstances necessitating such contingency of grant of police aid, the petitioner can make such an application afresh which the Court would consider on its own merits. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP WP 8204.2011