JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.—This revision petition is being disposed of, on merits at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties 2. The challenge has been made to the order passed by the Sub-Judge, Mandi dated 20-24997 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for police assistance, has been allowed. The copy of the order was further directed to be sent to the Station House Officer for strict compliance 3. It is quite painful to see that the dispute is between the father and his only son. The suit has been filed by the father Kartar Singh against his son Baldev Singh who is the petitioner before this Court claiming a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant son from interfering in his shop, hotel business and other property, By way of an interim injunction dated 9th December, 1996, ex-pane injunction was granted restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession, management and control of the plaintiff in respect of his property, hotel business and shop. The next date fixed by the Court for the service of the defendant was 4-1-1997 on which date the defendant put in appearance through counsel. The presiding officer was on leave on that date and consequently the case was adjourned to 16-1-1997. Again the presiding officer was on leave and the file was ordered to be put up on 21-1-1997. Strangely, the plaintiff moved an application for police assistance on the ground that the order passed on 9th December, 1996 was being defied. Order for police help was passed on that date. In the meantime, the defendant is said to have filed his reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. moved by the plaintiff and had also filed separate application seeking vacation of the stay order. 4. On 22-1-1997, afresh order was passed for police help and the third order in the series has been passed which is impugned before this Court in this revision petition. 5. 4. On 22-1-1997, afresh order was passed for police help and the third order in the series has been passed which is impugned before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Learned Counsel states at the bar that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. has not been finally disposed of Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff states at the bar that an appeal has been filed by the defendant before the learned District Judge and vide order dated 10-4-1997, the order passed by the trial Court dated 9-12-1996 has been ordered to be stayed. 6. Once this position is accepted to be correct, the defendant has nothing to fear. Be that as it may, 7. As I look at the things, I am at pains to observe how the Sub-Judge has dealt with the matter in a manner unheard of. When the defendant had put in appearance and filed reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C., the Court should have taken up that application and disposed it of by a speaking order That procedure was not adopted and the Court engaged itself towards filing of the applications by the plaintiff making requests for police help. 8. If the plaintiff felt aggrieved to the effect that the injunction order was being flouted, appropriate steps should have been taken under the provisions of the Jaw and the Court should have dealt with the matter. The defendant had already put in appearance and these orders have been passed ex-parte at his back. The manner in which the Court has conducted itself is not appreciated Passing one order after the other for providing police help to the plaintiff was wholly uncalled for in the given situation. 9. The impugned order is consequently set-aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and if the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C has not yet been disposed of, the same is directed to be disposed of as early as possible preferably within four weeks from today. 10. This revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Sub-Judge concerned forth-; with for compliance. 10. This revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Sub-Judge concerned forth-; with for compliance. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner free of costs under signatures of the Court Reader. Petition disposed of. -