A. was dismissed on the ground that rnaterial produced to prove the v. Upon consideration of such merits, more particularly, by perusing the pen

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS. No. 574 of 2021, on the file of the Learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, .CC.C. Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate Gounse! for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA CIVTL REV TSION PE,TTTION 131 of2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd Adnan. learnecl counsel fbr the revision petitioncr. ln spite of service of notice, none appeared and there is no representatit'itr for the resportdent. I)erused the entire record-

2. This (livil Revisior-r Petition is frled aggrieved by the order datr:c1

26.11.2024 passed by the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Colrrt at l{yderabacl, ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.24 of 2024 in I.A.No.53 of 2021 irr O.S.No.574 ol'2021, wherein petition frled under Section 151 of C.P.C. lor grant of police aid for implernenting injunction order dated 28.04.2021, has been dismissed.

3. The revision petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.574 of 2021 seekirrg perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent and her agents frottt interfering with the rcnovation work carried out in the suit scheduie property consisting of house bearing M.C.No.6-2-9411N202, situated crr the 2"d floor admeasuring 400 Sq.Feet, situated at Khairtabad Main Road, Hyderabad. Along with the said suit, l.A.No.53 of 2021 is filed seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondent and her agents frotn obstructing the revision petitioner frorn carrying out renovation work and RY,J cRI' 4l3l 2024 the said petition was allowed by order dated 28.04.2021. Pursuant to the said order, rvhen there was obstruction, the I.A. under revision was flled seeking police aid and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said clisrnissal, the present revision petition is preferred.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court has igrrored the settled preposition that it is the duty of the Court to ensr,rre that its order is implemented in its true letter and granting of police aid is not a lhvour to the revision petitioner, but is a bounded duty of the Court. lrufther, the trial Court erred in undetitanding the order of this Court in Ll.R.t'}.No.l971 of 2022 setting aside earlier order in I.A.No.88 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021 and therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. . a'. -s. As per the record, [.A.No.88 of 2021 was filed by the revlslon petitioner herein before the trial Court seeking grant of police aid to iirrplcrirent the order dated 28.04.2021 in I.A.No.53 of 2021. Said I.,A..No.88 of 2021 was disposed of denying the police aid. Aggrieved by the sarne C.R.P.No.l977 of 2022 has been preferred and the same was disposed of on 04.01 .2024 with the following order: "6. ...Even admitting that there is some issue between the parties, as the trial Court has alreadY granted injunction order after hearing bclth sides on merits, to protect the same, granting police aid cannot be 2 RY..I cRI' 4131 2024 said to be delayed one. The suit is stitl pending and it has not attained finality. As such the petitioner is entitled for the police aid. Ciranting police aid rvill nol calrse an},' pre.iudice to the respondent. The police u,,ill corne to thc aid only to the extent of order granted by thc trial Court and not lilr artl' other purpose. As such, the petitioner hcrein is granted liherty to fjlc a fresh pctition and trial Clourt can consicler the same on rncrits indcpcndenth'."

6. As per the above said order in C.R.P.No.l917 of- 2020, the police ai<l was to be granted for irnplementation of the order, which is granted by the trial Court and not for any other purposes and such police aid is also not lbr the purpose of causing any pre.iudice to the respondent. On the basis of the said order, rvhetl a fresh I.A. i.e., the l.A. under revision was filed, agairr the I.A. was dismissed on the ground that rnaterial produced to prove the disobedience of the injunction order in the form of pen-drive does not prove any such event- In tkre alrsence of the evidence about thr: disobedience, it is held that there is no necessity to grant police aid, as such, the I.A. has been disrnissed ( t 7 A perusal of the order of this Court in C.R.P.N o.1977 of 2022 shorvs that there is a direction to the revision petitioner to f-rle a fresh petition and that the trial Courl was directed to consider the same on merits independently. Such being the case, the fresh I.A. i.e., I.A. under revision was filed and the same had to be considered on merits independently Upon consideration of such merits, more particularly, by perusing the pen- ) ) 3 RY,J cRP 4l3l 2024 drive, which was meant for proving the disobedience of the injunction order, thc trial Court came to the conclusion that the pen-drive does not prove such disobedience. Except the said pen-drive, there was no other evidence to prove the disobedience of the order granted by the trial Courl and therefbre, the petition has been disrnissed. When the trial Court did not lind rnerits forgranting police aid, denial of such a relief cannot be held to be erroneous or in variation rvith the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1977 ol- 2022, as such this petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be disrnissed ti. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.11.2024 in I.A.No.Z4 of 2024 in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.574 of 2021 on the file of thr trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applicatioirs, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXI Junior Civil Judge, C.C.C. Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Mr. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate TOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies RCiPSL \ HIGH COURT DATED: 06/1 012025 ORDER CRP.No.4131 of 2024 -: , =.i\d'>'F 0 $ 'lthll ?[[16 I >-Z 4.t -i The Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. 6 v ")' ! i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ,'