Judgment : 1. The present civil revision petition is filed by the defendant aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2013 in O.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. The Court below allowed the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for police assistance to execute the warrant of arrest against the petitioner/ defendant. 2. Heard Ms. C.Uma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,02,449/- and for other reliefs. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.47 of 2010 restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating the machineries. Claiming that the said injunction order was violated, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.535 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code for punishing the petitioner/defendant. The Trial Court disposed of both I.A.No.535 of 2010 as well as O.S.No.13 of 2010 by passing a common order and judgment on 17.9.2012, thereby decreeing the suit as prayed for and also ordering I.A. No.535 of 2010. 4. Aggrieved against the order in I.A.No.535 of 2010, the petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous appeal with a delay. In so far as the decree passed in O.S.No.13 of 2010, the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur. Pending disposal of the first appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.57 of 2013 seeking for stay of the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.13 of 2010. He also filed another application in I.A.No.58 of 2013 for staying the order of arrest made in I.A.No.535 of 2010. 5. It is now represented before this Court that both the applications in I.A.Nos.57 and 58 of 2013 have been heard together by the Lower Appellate Court and orders are reserved. The present civil revision petition is against the order made in I.A.No.4 of 2013 seeking for police assistance, which is only a consequential order in pursuance of the order made in I.A.No.535 of 2010. 6. The present civil revision petition is against the order made in I.A.No.4 of 2013 seeking for police assistance, which is only a consequential order in pursuance of the order made in I.A.No.535 of 2010. 6. Since the present civil revision petition is arising out of the consequential order and when the parties have gone before the Lower Appellate Court and made their submissions in both I.A. Nos.57 and 58 of 2013, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the rival parties, it would suffice to direct the Lower Appellate Court to pass orders on those applications without any further delay, in view of the admitted fact that both sides have completed their arguments and the matter is also reserved for orders. 7. Therefore, the civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Lower Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders in I.A. Nos.57 and 58 of 2013 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the plaintiff to take out appropriate application in future, if so warranted, by taking note of the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in those applications. As I am only directing the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the interlocutory applications, the respondent/plaintiff shall not implement the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2013 in the meantime. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are closed.