These two revisions arise out of the same suit and between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

2. Respondents filed O.S.No.2554 of 2009 in the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1.04 guntas in Sy.No.698 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased in two bits of 36 guntas and 8 guntas through separate sale deeds, dated 05-06-2009, and that necessary entries were made in the records of Gram Panchayat. Permission for construction was said to have been granted by the Gram Panchayat, on 10-11-2009. Alleging that the petitioner, a company, registered under the Companies Act, represented by its Director, is interfering with their possession, the respondents prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction.

3. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.2950 of 2009, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. The trial Court passed an order of ad interim temporary injunction on 31-12-2009. Thereafter, that order was made absolute.

4. The respondents filed I.A.No.54 of 2010, under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant police aid. It was alleged that despite the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner is interfering with their possession. The trial Court passed an interim order dated 27-01-2010, granting police aid. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.2708 of 2010.

5. The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, against the ad interim order of temporary injunction dated 31-12-2009. There was a delay of 170 days in preferring the appeal. Hence, I.A.No.2533 of 2010 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A prayer was also made by the petitioner for suspension of the operation of the order of temporary injunction. The lower Appellate Court passed an order dated 22-07-2010, holding that, in view of the prohibition imposed in Rule 3-A(3) of Order XLI C.P.C., it is not feasible to pass interim order, unless the application for condonation of delay is considered and disposed of. C.R.P.No.3245 of 2010 is filed against the said order.

6. Sri V. Ramachandra Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of police aid in favour of the respondents by the trial Court was totally impermissible in law. He contends that the suit was filed deliberately against a company, though the claim against the suit schedule property was by individuals, one of whom, happens to be the Managing Director of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Director of the petitioner-company Sri N.K.Agarwal and a HUF headed by J.Shankar Lal Agarwal, filed O.S.No.133 of 2010 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondents herein, in relation to the same property, and that after hearing both the parties, the Court passed an order dated 28-04-2010 directing the parties to maintain status quo. He contends that whatever may have been the circumstances under which the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, passed an order of temporary injunction, and granted police aid, there does not exist any basis therefor, in view of the developments, referred to above.

7. As regards the order dated 22-07-2010 passed by the lower Appellate Court, learned counsel contends that though Rule 3-A(3) of Order XLI C.P.C., places restrictions upon the Appellate Court to pass interim orders in an appeal, in case an application for condonation of delay is pending, there is no prohibition as such. Learned counsel submits that the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. He has addressed arguments on merits of the matter also, and stated the manner in which his clients have acquired rights and title over the property. He places relian