THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1857 of 2010 ORDER: Tellabati Venkateswarlu and nine others filed O.S.No.6 of 1997 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala against the father of the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.0.75 cents of land in D.No.412 of Piduguralla Village, Guntur District. The father of the petitioners, on the other hand, filed a counter-claim for the relief of perpetual injunction. Through judgment, dated 05.07.2000, the trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter-claim. A.S.No.2590 of 2000 is said to be pending before this Court. Petitioner No.3 filed a complaint on 10.01.2010 before the Station House Officer, Piduguralla, respondent No.2 herein, alleging that respondent Nos.3 to 17 have threatened him with dire consequences. He sought necessary protection in this regard. His grievance is that respondent No.2 has not taken any action so far. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 17. The petitioners base their claim on a decree passed in favour of their father in O.S.No.6 of 1997. If they are armed with decree for perpetual injunction and find that the decree is violated by the judgment-debtors therein, the only course open to them is to seek execution as provided for under Order 21 C.P.C. On the other hand, if any strangers are trying to interfere, they have to file a suit against them and seek necessary relief. On behalf of respondent No.2, it is stated that no complaint was received from petitioner No.3. Though respondent No.2 cannot be expected to interfere in civil disputes, he has to ensure that the complaint made by petitioner No.3 about threat to his life is properly addressed. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon two judgments rendered by separate Division Benches of this Court reported in Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni Narasimham[1] and Satyanarayana Tiwari vs. S.H.O.P.S. Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad[2]. A perusal of the said judgments disclose that they are in relation to an application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court for protection in support of orders of temporary injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. It is difficult to extend that facility in case of decrees of perpetual injunction. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies vis-à- vis the property by approaching the civil Court either for execution or by filing a fresh suit, as the case may be. So far as the complaint as to threat to the life of the petitioners is concerned, respondent No.2 shall take the same into account as and when it is received. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.02.2010. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl [1] AIR 1971 Andhra Pradesh 53 [2] AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 394