THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6108 of 2009 Dated:26.02.2010 Between: Karpuram Swarajaya Lakshmi. …Petitioner And Dampanaboina Subhramanyam, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6108 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.457 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property admeasuring 96.3 square yards. She alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 who purchased vacant site admeasuring 300 square yards situated on the eastern side of her site and proposed to make construction on her site encroaching upon it, and that the third respondent tried to create new way towards southern side of vacant site. With these allegations she also filed I.A.No.1019 of 2009 for ad interim injunction. After contest, the Court below passed orders on 07.05.2007 granting injunction to the following effect. The petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed not to interfere with the overlapped 4 sq.yds of site of the petition schedule property till pending disposal of the main suit. The respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to construct their building without touching the overlapped 4 sq.yds of site till pending disposal of the main suit. The second prayer of the petitioner to restrain the 3rd respondent in the Northern lane of the petition schedule property is herewith dismissed. Two years thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2582 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking a direction from the Court below to direct the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, to implement the injunction order dated 07.05.2007 referred to hereinabove. By the impugned order, the Court below dismissed the application observing as under. There is no any specific finding by the Court regarding the possession over the overlapped 4 square yards of site and if at all the orders of the Court are violated by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner can as well initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. There is no any evidence placed by the petitioner to show that the respondents are making hectic efforts in proceeding with the construction even on the overlapped 4 square yards of site of the petition schedule property. Therefore at any stretch of imagination the grant of police aid under the said circumstances is likely to lead multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the respondents’ Counsel there is no specific finding by the Court regarding possession of overlapped 4 square yards of site. As seen from the earlier injunction order this observation is correct. Therefore, a direction to Police to implement the injunction order cannot be granted. If the petitioner has any grievance about alleged construction being made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 or all respondents together, the remedy is to file contempt proceedings against the respondents and Police protection cannot be granted. In Polavarapu Nagamani v Parchuri Koteshwara Rao[1] this Court considered the question regarding the power of the Court under Order XXI Rule 32 and Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC and the following principles were elucidated. 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 CPC 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 CPC, 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 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[2] and Anil Ratan Sarkar v Hirak Ghosh[3], 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. The impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.02.2010 vs [1] CMA Nos.1021 & 1128 of 2009, dated 24.11.2009 [2] (2001) 7 SCC 530 [3] (2002) 4 SCC 21