ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two revisions are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
2. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.282 of 2004 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, against the 2nd respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.No.702 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 2(2) of C.P.C. Initially, the trial Court granted ad interim temporary injunction, and thereafter the I.A., was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2004, in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, and it was allowed on 29-10-2004.
3. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.634 of 2006, in the suit, under Section 151 C.P.C, alleging that the petitioner herein, who is not a party to the suit, but the sister of the 2nd espondent; is trying to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 20-07-2006.
4. On coming to know about the said order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.666 of 2006, to set aside the same, by stating that she is not a party to the suit, and that she has her own independent rights, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. The application was resisted by the 1sl respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 08-09-2006, on ground that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. The petitioner filed C.R.P.No.4886 of 2006 against the said order. C.R.P.No.5414 of 2006 is directed against the order in I.A.No.634 of 2006.
5. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court adopted a self-contradictory approach in granting police aid against the petitioner, who is not a party to the suit, on the one hand, and rejecting the application to re-call the said order, on the ground that a third party cannot enter into the proceedings instituted by others. Learned Counsel contends that it is not even alleged that the petitioner is claiming any right through the 2nd respondent, aiding her, in the alleged violation of order of injunction.
6. Learned Counsel for the 1sl respondent, Sri P. Rajashekhar, on the other hand, submits that there is collusion between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, and it is permissible for a Court to grant police aid against third parties also, if there is any collusion between such third parties and persons, who are bound by the injunction. He places reliance upon certain decisions, in support of his contention.
7. By its very nature, an order of temporary injunction or decree for perpetual injunction would bind the concerned party, as well as his agents, employees, or persons claiming through him. Therefore, the steps for violation of orders of injunction can be initiated, not only against the parties, but also their agents, employees, and persons claiming through them. In the instant case, the allegation made in the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is that, the petitioner herein is interfering with his possession, over the suit schedule property. It was not even alleged that the petitioner is claiming through the 2nd respondent, or that she aided the 2nd respondent in violating the orders of temporary injunction. Therefore, it was totally impermissible for the trial Court, to grant the police aid against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the trial Court was under obligation to hear the petitioner before it allowed the LA. However, it has chosen to straightaway order it, without issuing notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.634 of 2006 deserves to be set aside.
8. Soon after she came to know about the order, passed in I.A.No.634 of 2006, the petitioner approached the trial Court by filing LA.No.666 of 2006, with a prayer to set aside the said order. After discussing the matter at length, the trial Court observed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the suit, to which she is not a party. By that very logic, the trial Court was not expected to order police aid against the petitioner. The contradictory approach, adopted by the trial Court; is found in these two orders.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.Ps. are allowed, and the orders under revision are set aside.
10. In case the 1st respondent is of the view that the petitioner is interfering with his possession, over the suit schedule property, without any basis, it shall always be open to him, either to institute separate proceedings, or to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead her as a party to the suit, and seek necessary relief.
11. There shall no order as to costs.