1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dt.03-9-2012 in I.A.No.150 of 2011 in I.A.No.119 of 2010 in OS.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioners are defendants in the said suit. The suit was filed by the respondents restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with their alleged possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs. The court below in I.A.No.119 of 2010 granted ad-interim injunction order in favour of the respondents on 09-4-2010.

4. The respondents filed I.A.No.150/2011 against petitioners seeking police aid alleging that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were set ex-parte in the suit; that they had not filed written statement; and petitioners 2 and 4 are contesting the suit; that inspite of the ad-interim injunction order dt.09-4-2010, the petitioners and their family members were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property; that on 20-5-2011 and 09-6-2011, they trespassed into the land along with coolies, cut barbed wire fencing, broke certain pillars and threatened the respondents with dire consequences; and that they also tried to plough the plaint schedule property, while abusing the respondents. The respondents sought directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dammapeta to give police-aid for implementation of the court orders.

5. No counter-affidavit was filed to this I.A. by the petitioners.

6. After waiting for a reasonable amount of time on 03-9-2012, the Court below granted police-aid to the respondents on the ground that the petitioners were interfering with the possession of the respondents over the plaint schedule property inspite of passing of an injunction order by the Court and also on the ground that no counter was filed by the petitioners.

7. Aggrieved thereby, this Revision is filed.

8. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that unless sufficient material is filed by the respondents, grant of police protection during the pendency of the suit on the basis of ad-interim injunction is not sustainable and merely because the petitioners had not filed any counter, instead of adjudicating the issue basing on the evidence on record, the court below erred in granting police-aid. He also placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and ors. V/s. Parchuri koteshwara Rao and ors. (2010 [2] ALD-41 [DB])

9. In the said decision, it was held:

“24. Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction are filed only to bring the defendants around the plaintiff’s view and accept some via-media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the Courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil court, an order of ex-parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under section 151 of CPC seeking police protection. Instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the courts should be very very cautious and vigilance not to introduce police intervention in civil adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the Civil Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by the party