ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.88 of 2021 in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021 by the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The said I.A., is filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection for implementation of injunction order in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021 stating that after granting injunction order, he continued his renovation work in respect of the suit property. On 17.02.2021 the police was informed about granting of injunction order and they asked the petitioner to inform them when any such incident takes place. On 18.02.2021 at about 2.00 p.m., when petitioner was carrying out his renovation work, the defendant along with her son came to the suit property, picked up quarrel, threw his raw material on the floor causing damage of about Rs.5000/-. They also manhandled the petitioner and once again demanded him to sell the suit property in their favour as per their offer and also threatened him with dire consequences. The same was recorded in C.C. TV camera installed by one of the tenant in the building. As such he prayed the Court to grant police aid.

3. The respondent therein filed counter denying the averments and stated that when petitioner along with several antisocial elements including some women suddenly came to the premises and were trying to dig in the common passage, in order to lay a sewerage pipe line without any sanction plan of such pipe line.

The respondent objected and was shocked to see the interim order granted ex parte. After going through the order, the respondent questioned the petitioner that the said order does not refer to laying of new sewerage pipe line or replacing of old sewerage line.

It only refers to renovation and further questioned, how can that order be used for laying new sewerage pipe line and she called the police authorities. It is further alleged that petitioner made illegal attempts during the working hours of her shop. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

4. The trial Court after hearing both sides and basing on the material available on record dismissed the petition.

5. Heard Sri Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Vyapari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. As seen from the record, petitioner herein filed interlocutory application in O.S.No.574 of 2021, vide I.A.No.53 of 2021 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the relief of temporary injunction. On 09.02.2021 initially the Court granted ad-interim injunction against the respondent. After hearing both sides, temporary injunction was granted in favour of petitioner which shows that injunction order was made absolute. According to the trial Court I.A.No.88 of 2021 was filed on 22.02.2021 and after filing of the petition, the injunction order was made absolute and there is no evidence of continuation of disobedience of the order of the trial Court. The dispute between the parties is that the petitioner herein is renovating his property and the contention of the respondent is that under the guise of work, petitioner is making constructions in common passage i.e., he is digging a lane for sewerage. Even admitting that there is some issue between the parties, as the trial Court has already granted injunction order after hearing both sides on merits, to protect the same, granting police aid cannot be said to be delayed one. The suit is still pending and it has not attained finality. As such the petitioner is entitled for the police aid. Granting police aid will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The police will come to the aid only to the extent of order granted by the trial Court and not for any other purpose. As such, the petitioner herein is granted liberty to file a fresh petition