( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-4-2002 passed in IA No. 82 of 2002 in IA No. 12 of 1999 in OS No. 1 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad - Warangal District, dismissing the petition filed for seeking police aid in implementing the ad interim injunction order granted by the Court in IA No. 12 of 1999 on 27-1-1999.

( 2 ) IA No. 82 of 2002 was filed consequent upon the happening of an incident on 24-2-2002 when the respondents are alleged to have entered into the theatre, knocked out all the staff from the theatre, threatened the Manager with dire consequences, stopped him from exhibiting the film and closed the theatre; that the respondents occupied the Manager s room and did not allow the petitioner to run the theatre besides causing damage to the property. The petitioner is said to have approached the police officials and explained them with regard to the interim order in his favour, who are said to have refused to take any action against the respondents without there being any direction from the Court. In those circumstances, the petitioner came up with the instant petition.

( 3 ) THE respondent denied various averments made in the petition and contended that they never interfered with the Management of the suit property. It averred that the respondent is a partner in the petition and the Honourable Court while granting ex parte injunction observed that the respondent can inspect the account books and can ask the petitioner for the same. Thus the respondents contend that he went to see the account books only and, therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

( 4 ) THE Court below having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that since the petition granting interim injunction was not disposed of within 30 days, the order dated 27-1-1999 granting ad-interim injunction, is non-est in law, and, therefore, there is no need to grant police aid. it is further observed by the Court below that since the main interlocutory application IA No. 12 of 1999 is also disposed of granting injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the respondents from interfering with the smooth management of the suit property and also with some directions, there is no need to grant police aid and thus dismissed the petition.

( 5 ) AGAINST the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for revision petitioner contended that if once the ad interim injunction granted is not vacated, it has its own force and, therefore, the rejection to grant police aid for implementation of the order and protection of the petitioner is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) IT is apposite, in the context of rival contentions, to quote Order 39, Rule 3-A, which reads thus:"3-A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days :--Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and there it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. . . . . "

( 8 ) THUS this rule contemplates that if ad interim injunction is granted without giving notice to the opposite party, a duty is cast on the Court to dispose of the said application finally within thirty days from the date on which such injunction was granted and if the Court is not able so to do, it has to record its reasons for such inability.

( 9 ) IT is borne out from the facts and circumstances on record that after passing the interim injunction on 27-1-1999, neither any attempts were made to dispose of the interlocutory application finally within thirty days nor the learned Judge has recorded his inability to dispose of the same within the stipulated time, Thus the order is neither confirmed nor extended for