THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 303 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging order dated 08.11.2010 in I.A. No.211 of 2010 in I.A. No.197 of 2009 in O.S. No.25 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur district, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to grant police aid for the purpose of implementing injunction order dated 12.4.2010 passed in I.A. No.197 of 2010, was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are defendants, and the respondent herein is the plaintiff, in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts are, the plaintiff filed Original Suit No.25 of 2009 before the trial Court for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction, and filed therein Interlocutory Application No.197 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property pending disposal of the suit. After hearing both sides, the trial Court granted interim injunction on 12.4.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.400 of 2010 before this Court. The appeal was dismissed by this Court on 20.07.2010. Therefore, the order of granting interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property has attained finalty, and the defendants have no manner of right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the present application has been filed to grant police aid for the purpose of preventing ensuing disobedience of the order of injunction and also proper implementation of the injunction order, and the same was allowed by the trial court by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that in view of the dictum laid by a Division Bench of this court in the decision in Polavarapu Nagamani & others v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao & others[1], mere violation of injunction by itself cannot be a basis to grant police aid unless it is shown that the violation would affect the right to life and liberty of the plaintiff. He further contended that after obtaining police aid, the plaintiff raised barbed wire fencing in front of the house of the defendants, thereby depriving the defendants’ ingress and egress to their house, and hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that when the acts of the defendants are likely to affect the right of plaintiff in pursuance of the injunction order, certainly, police aid can be granted; that the affidavit filed in support of the petition would clearly disclose that the acts of the defendants are likely to affect the rights of the plaintiff, and the fencing would not in any manner obstruct the defendants ingress and egress to their house and they have alternative way on southern side of their premises to reach their house, and considering these aspects, the trial court rightly ordered for police aid, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Considering the rival submissions made across the bar, it has to be seen whether mere violation or threatened mischief of injunction order can be said to be a ground to grant police aid to implement the order of injunction. A Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani’s case (1 supra) laid down certain guidelines to be observed by all the civil courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh for granting police aid in pursuance of the injunction order, wherein it is held thus: “(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C PC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of C PC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party. (iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v, Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court.” Of the above four guidelines, guideline no.3 is relevant for the purpose of the present revision. The Division Bench held that it may be complained that there are attempts by the opposite party to contravene and disobey the order of injunction or alleged threat of violation of injunction, then police aid can be granted. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court and the guideline no.3 in juxta position as they have got to be, it is clear that mere threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of injunction, by itself, is not a ground for asking the court to grant the relief of police aid. Threat of breach, disobedience or violation must be in connection with interference with the right of life and liberty of the opposite party. Therefore, it must be shown by the party seeking for police aid that the acts of the opposite party are likely to affect or interfere with his right of life and liberty. 7. There is no provision under CPC for grant of police aid for enforcement of injunction order. Under Section 151 CPC, the court has got inherent power in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the court, to give directions to the police to render all aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to the implementation of injunction orders passed by the Court or in the exercise of rights given to them under the said injunction order. 8. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is only stated ‘The respondents-defendants are willfully and intentionally disobeying the temporary injunction orders passed by this Hon’ble Court on merits and confirmed by the appellate court. The respondents- defendants are making hectic efforts to flout the injunction orders passed by this Hon’ble Court with the help of anti social elements. The respondents-defendants are likely to breach the injunction orders passed by this Hon’ble Court by using criminal force. Hence, there is every necessity to grant police aid for ensuring obedience of order of injunction and also proper implementation of the injunction orders.” Except the above statement, there is no allegation that the alleged acts of defendants would likely to interfere with the right with reference to life and liberty of the plaintiff. In the absence of any such allegations, the question of granting the police aid does not arise. This principle has been completely over-looked by the trial court and exceeded its limits in passing the impugned order, and so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 8.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 303 OF 2011 8.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 303 OF 2011 8.2.2011 Between: Babaiahgari Kamakshmamma & others …Petitioners/defendants And Dandu Kanthamma …Respondent/plaintiff [1] 2010 (6) ALT 92 (D.B.)