ORDER:

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 07.02.2019, allowing I.A.No.1484 of 2012 in I.A.No.519 of 2011 in O.S.No.148 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, filed under Section 151 CPC to grant police aid by preventing the respondent/plaintiff from trespassing into the petition schedule property and not to cause any loss to the petitioners in any manner and not to dispossess the petitioners therein and not to disturb the crops in the petition schedule property in the interests of justice.

2. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondents/

defendants.

3. The revision petitioner is the respondent in I.A.No.1484 of 2012 and the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents 1 & 2 in the revision petition are the petitioners 1 & 2 in I.A.No.1484 of 2012 and defendants in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 & 2 restraining them from trespassing into the suit schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.519 of 2011 seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The petition was dismissed on 03.07.2012. Against the said order, appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2013 was preferred before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal. The appeal was dismissed on 13.07.2017. Before filing of the appeal in C.M.A., the defendants filed I.A.No.1484 of 2012 seeking police aid stating that they raised paddy and jowar crops in the suit schedule property and even after dismissing the petition in I.A.No.519 of 2011, the plaintiff was making hectic efforts to trespass into the property along with rowdy elements and tried to dispossess the defendants there from during the month of October, 2012, and therefore, the defendants had given a complaint against the plaintiff to the Gadivemula P.S., however, the police had not taken any action.

5. The petition was opposed by filing counter. It is stated in the counter that the plaintiff preferred C.M.A.No.2 of 2013 against the orders passed in I.A.No.519 of 2011 and the appeal was posted to 21.01.2013 and that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and it is false to allege that the plaintiff is making efforts to trespass into the plaint schedule property. The petition was further opposed on the ground that the petitioners/defendants have not made any counter claim either for declaration of title or for perpetual injunction against the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and so police aid cannot be granted and that the petitioners filed this petition without any legal basis and further with a mala fide intention to take possession of the plaint schedule property forcibly with the aid of the police and to harass and embarrass the respondent.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2013 was dismissed on 13.07.2017 and the petitioners/defendants filed three photographs showing that there is standing crop in the petition schedule property raised by them and also a Sakshi newspaper, dated 02.11.2012, containing the news regarding filing of case against the respondent/ plaintiff for threatening the petitioners/ defendants and also by considering the orders in I.A.No.519 of 2011 and C.M.A.No.2 of

2013.

7. Having been aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court passed the order in exercise of excessive jurisdiction and that when there is no order, interim or final, passed by the trial Court, granting police aid is beyond the jurisdiction and not in the interest of justice. In the same context, it is further submitted that the police aid can be granted only f