Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and Sri S.Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.

2. This Court on 31-11-2008 ordered notice before admission and granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks in C.M.P.No.6280 of 2008.

3. Sri Sitaram Chaparla, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner had taken this Court through the order under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that this order was made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, without application of mind and this being a cryptic order and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge failed to consider that there is no existing thorny bush fencing to the north of the plaint schedule property and the same was removed by the 1st respondents son by name Venkateswara Rao on 20-10-2007 highhandedly with the help of his henchmen and the said fact was mentioned in the counter of the petitioner filed in injunction petition I.A.No.2451/2007. The Counsel also would maintain that in fact the petitioner had given police report regarding the said incident and the police yielding to the political influence of the 1st respondent – plaintiff did not register the case and hence the petitioner was constrained to file a private complaint against the son of the 1st respondent and others and the same was forwarded to the concerned police and the police on investigation registered a case against them and the same is pending. Thus the Counsel would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem had not exercised the discretion properly while granting police-aid.

4. On the contrary, Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent - plaintiff had narrated the dates and would maintain that after a long lapse of time, the petitioner - 1st respondent -1st defendant had chosen to challenge this order by way of this present Civil Revision Petition for the reasons best known to him. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on P.Shanker Rao V. B.Susheela1 2000 (2) Ald 147 And Netha Chintawar And Another V. Bodugam Gopi2006 (5) Ald 95 and would maintain that inasmuch as it is the settled position of law that the Court can grant police-aid for implementation of the interim orders made by the Court, the order under challenge cannot be found fault in any way since the same does not suffer from any illegality or any legal infirmity whatsoever. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge and ultimately would conclude that inasmuch as the learned Judge had exercised the discretion properly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the material available on record.

6. The Revision Petitioner - 1st respondent -1st defendant had challenged the order dt.8-7-2008 made in I.A.No.890/2008 in I.A.No.2451/2007 in O.S.No.421/2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The 1st respondent is the petitioner in I.A.No.890/2008 in I.A.No.2451/2007 in O.S.No.421/2007 aforesaid and plaintiff in the said suit. The petitioner -plaintiff had averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the petitioner filed a suit claiming permanent injunction against the respondents relating to Ac.3.85 in R.S.No.444/2A at Musullagunta and filed an application for temporary injunction in I.A.No.2451/2007 in O.S.No.421/2007 and after due enquiry the learned Judge was pleased to grant temporary injunction on 11-3-2008 and directed the respondents not to remove the thorny bush fencing on the northern side of the petition schedule property and directed the parties to maintain the same with other suitable directions.

Subsequent thereto on 28-3-2008 made an