THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5061 of 2010 Dated:18.11.2010 Between: Manchuri Ananda Reddy, And others. ….Petitioners And Veeraiahgari Venkat Reddy, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5061 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.212 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler. The said suit is for permanent injunction. They also filed I.A.No.951 of 2008 for ad interim injunction, which was granted. They yet again filed I.A.No.19 of 2009 alleging that when the first petitioner was ploughing the suit schedule land, the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and the plaintiffs were not able to resist the same. On such allegation, they sought Police protection. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.19 of 2009 on 28.09.2010, aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners. In a recent judgment of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani v Parchuri Koteshwara Rao[1] this Court considered the scope of the power of the civil Court under Section 94(e) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to order Police protection. The following principles were laid down therein. 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, 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. This Court examined the factual background in the light of the above principles and does not find any error in the impugned order. The Court below was justified in declining to order Police protection. If there is a breach of ad interim injunction, it is always open to the petitioners to file an application under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The Civil Revision Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.11.2010 vs [1] 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB)