JUDGMENT

Shameem Akther, J. - This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order, dated 19.06.2019, passed in I.A.No.118 of 2016 in I.A.No.51 of 2015 in O.S.No.20 of 2015 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, wherein the Court below has dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to grant police aid by directing the Station House Officer, Bachannapet, to provide police protection for implementation of the injunction order granted on 19.11.2015 in I.A.No.51 of 2015 in the subject Suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that in spite of the ad-interim temporary injunction order being granted in favour of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs vide order, dated 19.11.2015, in I.A.No.51 of 2015 in the subject Suit, still there is interference by the respondents/defendants. Therefore, it is necessary to provide police aid to protect the rights and possession of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. The Court below had observed that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs prima facie could not establish the interference by respondents/defendants, which is erroneous and ultimately, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would submit that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the suit schedule properties. No interference, as alleged, is made by the respondents/defendants. No application of this nature is required to be allowed and the Court below is justified in dismissing of the subject Interlocutory Application and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the point that arises for determination is as follows:

"Whether police aid, as sought in the subject Interlocutory Application, can be granted in favour of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs?"

6. It is apt to state that in Gangupanthula Ranga Rao v. Bathula Laxmaiah and others, 2019 1 ALD 411 , in paragraph No.6, it is held as under:

"6. POINT: As has been held by this Court in Syed Sadullah Hussainis case, 2017 1 ALT 553 (supra), there is no denial of the legal position that the Court cannot deny the relief of police-aid for implementation of an ad-interim order and in the matter of implementation, there is no difference between an ad-interim order and an injunction order passed after enquiry. If the Court finds that the respondent tried to meddle with the property in spite of ad-interim order, it can as well grant police-aid and to that extent there is no demur. However, as rightly held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vanga Buchi Reddys case, 2004 4 ALT 267 : 2004 (3) ALD 815 (Supra), it would not be proper for the Court to order police-aid to implement the ex parte order of injunction, when the defendants appeared and filed counter and seek to set aside the ex parte order.

(a) So from a conjunctive study of both the judgments of this Court, the conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no hurdle for a Court to implement an ad-interim injunction order when it finds that the respondent has intentionally violated the said order. ."

7. In the instant case, the Court below, on hearing both sides, having come to a conclusion that the documents filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs reveal prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour, vide order, dated 19.11.2015, in I.A.No.51 of 2015 in the subject Suit, granted ad-interim temporary injunction in favour of the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs restraining the respondents/defendants from causing any sort of interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment