JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon dismissing the application dated 24.10.2001 of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) seeking police assistance for harvesting of his crop. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him forcibly. An application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code was also filed and on 15.10.2001 and ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit land which is continuing till date. Claiming that when the rice crop of the plaintiff-petitioner was standing on the suit land, he filed an application on 24.10.2001 for police assistance complaining that defendant- respondents were trying to forcibly harvest the rice crop in flagrant violation of the ad interim injunction issued on 15.10.2001. That application has been dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge by recording the following order ; "Keeping in view the argument addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the records available on the file I have no hesitation to say that the application for police assistance was moved on 24.10.2001 and from 24.10.2001 to till today applicant has not argued the application which shows that he has no need for police assistance. At the same time the contents of the application are showing that there was paddy crop in the land in dispute which has already been cut as per the version of respondent and same has also been admitted by the applicant. Although the interim injunction application has been upheld but still it is an appealable order and so in the present facts and circumstances of the case in hand I do not consider it appropriate to give police assistance to the applicant because applicant has not argued that application from 24.10.2001 to till today and it seems that no imminent problem is there. Consequent to whole of my above discussion I am of the view that the police assistance cannot be given to the applicant. Accordingly, present application has been dismissed." 2. Consequent to whole of my above discussion I am of the view that the police assistance cannot be given to the applicant. Accordingly, present application has been dismissed." 2. I have heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for plaintiff-petitioner and have perused the file with his assistance. 3. Shri Jain has argued that even if application was moved for harvesting the rice crop on 24.10.2001, the Additional Civil Judge was duty bound to extend the police help for harvesting the current wheat crop. According to the learned counsel, although separate application for wheat crop of 2002 has been filed but the same has not been taken up for hearing by the Additional Civil Judge. 4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel impressed with the same because the application which was filed under Section 151 of the Code on 24.10.2001 praying for police assistance for harvesting the rice crop on the allegation that the defendant- respondents were trying to forcibly cut that crop has been rendered infructurs by the efflux of time. However, the observations made by the Additional Civil Judge in the operative part of his impugned order that an interim injunction granted by the additional Civil Judge is still an appellate order could not be approved because the orders passed by the Courts below, even if appealable are required to be respected. Such orders do not lose their significance and force merely because an appeal is provided for challenging such orders. It was the duty of the Additional Civil Judge to take up the application of the plaintiff-petitioner and decide the application expeditiously. Be that as it may. 5. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has stated at the bar that another application dated 8.4.2002 has been filed seeking police help for harvesting of the wheat crop which is pending before the Additional Civil Judge. If that be so, the Additional Civil Judge should take up the application and decide the same so as to the avoid any mischief by the defendant-respondents and also to ensure that the ad interim injunction issued by the Additional Civil Judge is not violated. Subject to the above observation, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, thus, liable petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.