ORDER :

1. Challenging the order dated 23.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2022 in I.A.No.656 of 2021 in O.S.No.334 of 2021 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, this revision is filed.

2. Heard Sri. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K. Chaitanaya, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The respondents herein/plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.334 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahaboobnagar against the petitioners herein/defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a petition vide I.A.No.656 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction and Court below vide order dated 28.10.2021 granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was posted to 12-11-2021 after ordering notices. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said I.A.No.656 of 2021 was adjourned to 29.12.2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022.

4. Further, according to the petitioners/defendants, they have filed counter in I.A No.656 of 2021. In the meanwhile, respondents/ plaintiffs have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.121 of 2022 seeking police aid in implementing the ex parte ad interim order dated 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022 was allowed vide order dated 23-02-2022. Aggrieved with the said order dated 23.02.2022, the petitioners/defendants herein have filed the present Revision.

5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the afore-stated suit vide O.S.No.334 of 2021 against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction. They have also filed I.A.No.656 of 2021 for ad interim injunction vide order dated 28.10.2021,Court below granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and posted the said Interlocutory application to 12.11.2021 by ordering notice to petitioners herein. Thereafter, the said Interlocutory Application was adjourned to 29.12.2021 and to 23.03.2022.

6. It is trite to note that as per Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. But the Court below without doing so, adjourned I.A No. 656 of 2021 to 29-12-2022 from 12.11.2021 and thereafter to 23.03.2022. The said I.A.No.656 of 2021 is pending now. In the meanwhile, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed aforesaid petition vide I.A.No.121 of 2022 seeking police aid to implement the said ex parte ad interim injunction passed in I.A.No.656 of 2021. The said I.A.No.121 of 2022 was allowed on 23.02.2022 and the Court below granted Police aid.

7. Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court below without hearing the injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.656 of 2021, allowed I.A.No.121 of 2022 and erroneously granted police aid. He has placed reliance on two judgments. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Vanga Buchi Reddy Vs. Vanga Madhusudhan Reddy, (Order dated 12.04.2014 in CRP No. 4395 of 2003: MANU/AP/0237/2004), held that when a person against whom the ex parte injunction is passed makes a request to the court to hear the injunction petition on merits, Court should normally postpone the hearing of the petition seeking police aid to enforce the ex parte order of injunction, till the disposal, on merits of the injunction petition. If the person against whom an order of ex parte injunction is granted, had violated the order of injunction, petition under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC to punish him can be filed. It should be kept in view that granting police aid to implement an ex parte injunction, may sometimes cause prejudice and hardship to the opposite party, w