1. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filled challenging the Order, dated 04.05.2016 in I.A.No.173 of 2016 in I.A.No.17 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal granted police aid for implementation if interim order dated 20.10.2016 in I.A.No.17 of 2016 in I.A.No.17 of 2016 granting ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, who are the revision petitioners, and their men from inferring with the Management of Shairgul, Mitti Ka Sher, Hyderabad.

2. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the Tribunal granted ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.17 of 2016 on 20.01.2016 restraining with the Management of Darga Hazarath Noorullah Hussain. Later the revision petitioners appeared before the Tribunal and sought time for filling counter. But unfortunately, counsel for the respondents before the Tribunal reported no instructions. By the impugned order, the Tribunal ordered application on 04.05.2016 granting police aid.

3. But the revision petitioners filed a petition to set aside the ex parte Order, which is at pre registration stage (SR Stage) pending before the Tribunal and without considering the application pending, the Tribunal passed on interim order and it is erroneous. It is further contended that ad-interim order dated 20.10.2016 in I.A.No.17 of 2016 was not made absolute, granted police aid without considering attending circumstances of the case; that a notice is required to be issued on the respondents when the advocate reported no instruction. But the Tribunal without following such procedure, granted police aid for implementation of the Order in I.A.No.17 of 2016 and the same is erroneous and prayed to set aside the same.

4. Whereas the counsel for the first respondent herein argued totally in support of impugned Order, while contending that in earlier litigation O.S.No.82 of 2009, grand father of the revision petitioners was the first defendant and later these revision petitioners were came on record as his legal heir and late the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-Syed Waliullah Hussain, who is the first respondent herein.

5. As seen from the Order under challenge, the first respondent complained violation of interim order dated 20.01.2016 passed by this court in I.A.No.17 of 2016, thereby sought for police aid to implement the Order passed by the court.

6. One of the contentions before this Court is that unless ad-interim injunction is made absolute, no police aid can be granted. No doubt ad-interim injunction order dated 20.01.2016 was not made absolute. Though the interim order was passed while ordering notice, still such order is to be implemented by the Court and when the respondents violated or infringed the right of the first respondent herein despite ad-interim injunction, the Court cannot deny relief of police aid for implementation of the ad-interim order passed by the Court, since the parties cannot be allowed to take advantage of ad-interim order, to disobey the interim order passed by this Court.

7. There is no difference regarding enforceability of ad-interim order and interim order, but ad interim order is passed only to afford opportunity to the revision petitioners to put forth his case before the Tribunal either to set aside ad-interim order or to made absolute. Therefore, absolutely no fetter on the powers of the Court to grant police aid before the ad-interim order made absolute. On this ground the Order cannot be set aside.

8. The second contention raised before this Court is that when a petition to set aside the ex parte order is filed, which is at the stage of pre registration (SR stage), the Tribunal cannot pass an Order granting police aid and that taking advantage of police aid, they trying to get tenant evicted and such order cannot be utilized to throw out the person in possession.

9. Undisputedly, earlier to the pr