KASTURI VENKATA SUBBAIAH Vs. VEERAPAREDDY YASODAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10. 4. 2008 in I. A. No. 454 of 2002 in I. A. No. 379 of 2002 in O. S. No. 66 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule properties. Along with the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed I. A. No. 379 of 2002 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/revision petitioners from interfering with the suit schedule property. The Court below granted ad interim injunction on 9. 10. 2002. The defendants/revision petitioners filed their counters contesting the said application for temporary injunction. While I. A. No. 379 of 2002 for temporary injunction was yet to be heard, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed another application being I. A. No. 454 of 2002 on 28. 11. 2002 for grant of police aid for implementation of the order of ad interim injunction. The said application was also opposed by the defendants/revision petitioners by filing a counter. However, no final orders were passed on any of the said applications and they were merely kept pending. While so, on 20. 6. 2007 I. A. No. 379 of 2002 filed for temporary injunction was dismissed for non-prosecution by the plaintiff/respondent herein. Subsequently, on an application made by the plaintiff/respondent herein, I. A. No. 379 of 2002 was restored to file by order dated 10. 4. 2008. Surprisingly on the same day i. e. , 10. 4. 2008 the Court below allowed I. A. No. 454 of 2002 also thereby granting police aid for implementation of the order of ad interim injunction dated 9. 10. 2002. The said order made in I. A. No. 454 of 2002 is under challenge in this Civil revision Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. There can be no dispute about the inherent powers of a Court to grant police aid for implementation of its orders so as to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Such a power can be exercised even to enforce the order of ad interim injunction. However, the question is whether the Court below is justified in granting police aid on 10. 4. 2008 on an application filed in the year 2002 for the purpose of enforcement of ad interim injunction dated 9. 10. 2002.