.

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Review W.P.M.P.No.34683 of 2017 in W.P.No.19570 of 2017 dated 21.9.2017.

2. The facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner filed O.S.No.183 of 2015 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District seeking permanent injunction. He filed IA.No.851 of 2015, under Order 39 Rule I C.P.C, seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule ‘property. An order of temporary injunction was passed on 8.7.2015, which was made absolute more than two years thereafter on 18.7.2017. The appellants herein were heard before the interim order dated 08.07.2015 was made absolute on 18.07.2017.

3. While passing final orders in W.P.No.19570 of 2017 on 20.7.2017, the learned Single Judge was not made aware that the order of temporary injunction was made absolute by the Court below two days prior thereto on 18.07.2017. Consequently, by his order in W.P.No.19570 of 2017 dated 20.7.2017, the learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the 3rd respondent- writ petitioner seeking police protection, and to deal with the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. He further held that, if any report is given by the petitioner disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the respondent-police officer should take steps in accordance with law, having regard to the order passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No. 851 of 2015.

4. On the ground that the interim order, which was made absolute on 18.7.2017, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner filed Review W.P.M.P.No.34683 of 2017. While the maintainability of the review petition was also put in issue, the learned Single Judge observed that the Court below had heard the defendants, and had passed the order on 18.7.2017 making the earlier order of temporary injunction absolute. The review petition was allowed and the review petitioner was granted police protection till the order of the Civil Court dated 18.7.2017 was either stayed or reviewed or set aside by a superior Court.

5. It is not in dispute that the order, making the earlier order of interim injunction absolute, was passed after hearing the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that the said order of interim injunction continues to remain in force as on date. The submission of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have reviewed the earlier order directing the police officials to consider the representation of the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner for grant of police aid, and should not have directed the police officials to provide police protection, as the burden is on the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner to establish that the order of temporary injunction was violated; and the degree of proof required to establish such violation is of a very high order.

6. Learned counsel would rely on Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others (1) 2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB) wherein a Division Bench of this Court observed that, where a petition is filed seeking police protection, an order cannot be passed in a routine manner; if there is an allegation of threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, the Court has the power to order police protection subject to proof, by imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life, liberty and rights of the opposite party; the standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction, or alleged br