Judgment : This revision is directed against an order of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, in I.A.No.868 of 1993 directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station to give protection to the respondent herein. The respondent had filed O.S.No.449 of 1993 for an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his enjoyment of the suit house bearing No.8/ 62 by changing the tiles in the roof and from taking water from the suit common well by installing a single phase electric motor and for other suitable reliefs. Pending the suit, the respondent prayed for an injunction in I.A.No.659 of 1993. The petitioner was taking time again and again in the said petition for filing counter. The petition was filed actually on 25. 1993 but till 27. 1993 no counter was filed by the petitioner, who was again praying for adjournment. In these circumstances, the trial court passed an order of interim injunction in favour of the respondent. Then the respondent filed I.A.No.868 of 1993 for direction to give police protection apprehending that the petitioner would interfere with the respondent while changing the tiles of the roof and bailing out water from suit common well. In the affidavit it is alleged that as the rains have set in, it is very difficult for the respondent to live in the suit house and it is absolutely necessary to change the tiles in the roof immediately. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that the petitioner had not filed counter affidavit in the application for injunction though he had been taking time from 16. 1993 onwards. The said application was served on the petitioner on 8. 1993 and time was granted till 8. 1993 to file a counter. But the petitioner did not file any counter. The court heard both sides and passed an order on 8. 1993 granting police protection as prayed for by the respondent. 2. The said order is challenged in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention is that the court below has not kept in mind the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami v. Sri La Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaran and another, (1993)1 M.L.J. 274 . 2. The said order is challenged in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention is that the court below has not kept in mind the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami v. Sri La Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaran and another, (1993)1 M.L.J. 274 . The Division Bench held in that case that the civil court can issue directions to the police authorities under Sec.151, C.P.C. to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders to aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of injunction orders granted by civil courts. The Bench has also said that the court has to decide whether directions are to be issued and it should be done only in appropriate cases. Learned counsel submits that the court below has not applied its mind to find out whether this is an appropriate case to which a direction, as prayed for by the respondent, should be given. No doubt, the order of the court below does not disclose any reason for granting the police protection. But the facts which I have stated earlier will show that the petitioner has always been taking lime again and again for filing counter in the petition for injunction and the interim order was passed only after the court granted more than ample opportunity to the petitioner to file counter. As seen from the affidavit filed in the injunction application I.A.No.868 of 1993, the petitioner has failed to file counter from 16. 1993 till 27. 1993. Thus, the petitioner had more than a month and 13 days and yet he did not file a counter affidavit in the application for injunction. In those circumstances, the court below granted an interim order of injunction and also thought fit to grant police aid for the purpose of implementing the order of injunction. I do not find any justification to interfere with that order in a revision petition. 3. The second contention is that there is an application filed by the petitioner for vacating the interim injunction and during the pendency of such application the court ought not to have granted police aid, which would virtually amount to enforcement of the order of injunction without hearing the petitioner on the application for vacating the injunction. Admittedly, the petition to vacate the injunction was filed only on 18. Admittedly, the petition to vacate the injunction was filed only on 18. 1993, after the impugned order was passed. It should be noted that when the impugned order was passed, there was no application to vacate the injunction. The court had only the interim order of injunction on 27. 1993 passed after waiting for more than a month for the petitioner to file a counter affidavit. Hence this contention is not acceptable. 4. The third contention is that the main relief prayed for in the suit is itself one for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent changing the tiles and bailing out water from the common well and that has now been granted by the interim order in the application for injunction. It is contended that without taking evidence in the suit, the relief, which has been prayed for in the suit, cannot be granted in an injunction application and that will virtually amount to passing of decree in the suit before the trial. 1 am unable to accept this contention. In every suit for injunction, there may necessarily be an application for interim injunction as the plaintiff will be in need of some interim relief. Such interim relief has to be granted only on the basis of prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. In the present case, inspite of several opportunities having been given and the petitioner having taken a long time for filing counter, the petitioner did not choose to file a counter affidavit. Hence, the court thought it fit to grant an interim injunction. In particular, it has to be seen that the injunction is one to protect the effecting of repairs to the tiled roof and the rainy season having approached, the respondent’s interest should necessarily be protected so that he will not suffer by a leaking roof. It is only in those circumstances, the interim order has been passed. 5. It is, certainly, open to the petitioner to press his application for vacating the injunction and get a disposal from the court below. The trial court is directed to dispose of the application for vacating the interim injunction filed by the petitioner herein on or before 29. 1993 after hearing both sides. The trial court shall not be swayed by any of the observations made in this order. 6. The civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the application for vacating the interim injunction filed by the petitioner herein on or before 29. 1993 after hearing both sides. The trial court shall not be swayed by any of the observations made in this order. 6. The civil revision petition is dismissed. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the main relief in the suit has been granted before the trial.