THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 5992 of 2010 O R D E R: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order made in I.A. No. 1901 of 2010 in I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 in O.S. No. 271 of 2006 dated 14.12.2010 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking police aid for implementation of ad interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 dated 1.12.2006 was dismissed. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants. Petitioner laid suit in O.S. No. 271 of 2006 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. It appears, along with the suit, he had filed I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and CPC seeking ad interim injunction and the same was granted on 1.12.2006. According to petitioner, the said ad interim injunction is still subsisting. During the subsistence of the said injunction, respondents tried to interfere into the suit schedule property, dumped material and took up construction work. Under those circumstances, petitioner filed I.A. No. 1901 of 2010 under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid for implementation of the order passed in I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 dated 1.12.2006. It was the case of petitioner that even the petitioner was restrained from making any construction in the subject property by the said ad interim injunction. While that being so, respondents tried to interfere/enter into the subject land and make constructions in violation of the orders passed in I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 dated 1.12.2006. Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 1901 of 2010 seeking police aid. Respondents resisted the same, saying that such a petition is not maintainable etc. After hearing both the parties, Court below held as under: “On perusal of the entire case records, it has to come to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has instituted this suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the alleged possession over the said property. On the other hand the defendants have filed their written statements by denying such title of petitioner over the suit schedule property. So far as this application is concerned, the respondents have filed their counters by denying the maintainability of this application on the ground that the same is not maintainable when the petitioner has other remedies available in the code of Civil Procedure. Now the only question which requires a detailed consideration in this application is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to such relief under Section 151 CPC. Section 151 CPC is meant only to invoke the inherent powers by a Court under such circumstances where there is no other remedy available for such a party in the code of civil procedure and not otherwise. The code has prescribed Rule 2(A) of Or.XXXIX for a party to invoke under the circumstances where the other party against whom such an injunction is passed has violated such injunction. The petitioner has submitted a judgment rendered by our Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in a case decided between “Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham”, reported in AIR 1971 AP 53 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has given a definite finding that an application to grant police aid is not at all maintainable, because of the absence of such provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, but under Article 226 of Indian Constitution. Unfortunately the decision submitted by the petitioner herein is against to his interest and the petitioner seems to be not aware of such findings given by the Hon’ble High Court. Notwithstanding the above said law quoted by the petitioner, even the present law rendered by our Hon’ble High Court speaks the same in a recent decision rendered between “Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteswara Rao” reported in 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB), wherein our Hon’ble High Court has settled such law once for all by discussing the earlier decisions rendered by it and finally given a clear guidance to all the lower Courts to be kept in mind while dealing with this type of applications. As a first guidance the Hon’ble High Court has held that an application under Section 151 CPC is not maintainable, but under Rule 2(A) of Or.XXXIX of CPC. However, the Hon’ble High Court has not altogether ruled out the possibility of passing an order under Section 151 CPC and directed the Courts not to pass such orders to grant police aid in a routine manner but only under exceptional circumstances, provided such party shall establish proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Even we consider such guidance of the Hon’ble High Court, still the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this application. In expecting such proof beyond all reasonable doubt, this Court has searched for proof in this application to know such violation of the orders passed by this Court by the respondents and found no such proof. The petitioner has not submitted any proof in this matter about this approach of police and also other facts alleged by him in his application. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to invoke the injunction of this Court under its inherent powers of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court would like to state as its own opinion that no party shall find shortcut methods to get relief from the Courts that too when the Code has prescribed a specific procedure to be followed. Therefore, for the reasons stated above this application is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed”. May be, police aid shall be provided only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine. But, here is a case where already ad interim injunction was granted against both the parties not to take up any construction in the suit schedule property. Once this is so, if the respondents are interfering and trying to take up construction etc., the very purpose of granting interim injunction on 1.12.2006 in I.A. No. 1072 of 2006 becomes infructuous. May be, petition as such under Section 151 CPC is not maintainable, but merely quoting a wrong Section itself does not require the petition to be rejected. Further, it is also stated that the petitioner has not submitted any proof in this matter as to approaching the police and seeking police aid etc. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed a complaint before the police on 6.12.2010 and in fact police replied saying that this being civil in nature and civil suit is still pending before the Court of law in between the parties, it is better to approach the concerned Court seeking redressal from the civil Court only. However, it appears, these papers could not be produced before the Court below in view of the boycott organized by the advocates. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the impugned order dated 14.12.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for re-consideration. The Court below is directed to take up I.A. No. 1901 of 2010, receive the documents if any filed by the petitioner and pass orders afresh, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The C.R.P. is allowed and remanded as above. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 24-12-2010. Note: Issue copies within four days. (BO) MVB.