THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4717 of 2010 Date:11.8.2011 Between: Saddala Naga Subba Reddy. ………...Petitioner. And Busireddy Raja Reddy …… Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4717 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.8.2010 passed in I.A.No.659 of 2009 in O.S.No.143 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC and granted police aid. 2. The background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the defendant in O.S.No.143 of 2001 are: 3. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.143 of 2001. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The suit filed by him came to be decreed on 25.2.2004. He moved I.A.No.659 of 2009 seeking police aid on the ground that the defendant despite the decree is interfering with his possession. The defendant resisted the application on the ground that he never created any disturbance to the agricultural operations of the plaintiff. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application by order dated 10.8.2010. Hence this revision. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.10.2010. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondent through counsel appeared on his behalf in the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice to the respondent through counsel appeared on his behalf and filed proof of service. Despite notice being served on the respondent through counsel appeared on his behalf in the trial Court, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through the counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the decree has been passed, in case violation of the injunction, the decree holder has to file execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and not the application under Section 151 CPC. The learned counsel refers Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in support of his submission. 8. The suit filed by the respondent herein ended in decree on 25.2.2004. If there is any violation of the injunction order after the decree, the decree holder has to file an execution petition and seek relief as provided under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Moving an application under Section 151 CPC as if the suit is still pending is contrary to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Therefore, the order impugned in the revision cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.8.2010 and consequently, I.A.No.659 of 2009 in O.S.No.143 of 2001 on the file of the by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, stands dismissed. No costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:11.08.2011 mrb