IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3668 of 2007 Between: Bathina Venkata Subbaiah .. Petitioner AND Sandu Satyanarayana .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Babitha Pawar, learned counsel representing Smt. Kambhampati Madhavi, learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order dated 01-05-2007 in E.A.No.368 of 2007 in E.P.No.69 of 2007 in O.S.No.114 of 1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, refusing to grant police aid to the revision petitioner for cutting and thrashing the paddy crop in the decree schedule property led the decree holder to approach this Court with this revision. The Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the decree holder in respect of the decree schedule property and pending the same, the decree holder filed the execution application claiming that the respondent and his henchmen were obstructing him from cutting and realizing the crop in spite of his giving a report to the police in Cr.No.107 of 2006 of Chinaganjam police station and in spite of the decree. The respondent was alleged to be gathering a huge mob to prevent the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the decree and hence, the petition. The respondent denied the allegation and also contended that there is no provision, which enables the Executing Court to grant police aid in favour of the decree holder. The Executing Court in the impugned order observed that if at all the respondent disobeyed and violated the judgment and decree of the High Court, he will be punished in accordance with law, but no police aid can be granted for implementing the orders of permanent injunction. The application was dismissed without costs. The revision petitioner challenges the said order herein contending the same to be a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Executing Court and to be an order, which shakes the faith of the people in the efficacy of the judicial process. The only point for consideration is whether the Executing Court could have exercised any power to grant police aid to the decree holder under the circumstances? Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically lays down in respect of a decree for an injunction that in case the judgment debtor having an opportunity of obeying the decree willfully failed to obey the same, the same can be enforced either by attachment of the property of the judgment debtor or by his detention in the civil prison or by both. Order XXI Rule 32 by its very language appears to be a self-contained provision and in case of failure of the judgment debtor to obey the decree even after the attachment under sub-rule (1) which remained in force for six months, the next option provided is to sell the property so attached. If the judgment debtor obeyed the decree and paid all costs of the execution, then the attachment will be raised. It is well settled that any inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be beyond any specific provision of the Code of Civil Procedure governing a particular situation and in the face of the express provision of law providing for the procedure to be followed in enforcement of a decree for injunction, the inherent powers cannot be taken recourse to. The power of a Civil Court to grant police aid to enforce an interim injunction pending a civil suit was recognized by precedential law and such a recognition cannot be extended to the powers of the Executing Court, which are specifically circumscribed by the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any view, this execution application was made for protection of a crop in 2007, which could not have been still available for being protected now and even on that count, the Civil Revision Petition has reached a stage by efflux of time where it need not be ordered. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-06-2010 Ksn