THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.4476 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent only, since the second and third respondents are not necessary parties to the proceedings, as per the cause title in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the V Additional District judge, Vijayawada, allowing the application I.A.No.921 of 2009 in A.S.No.63 of 2006, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to issue directions to the Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District, to provide sufficient security during the period of harvesting and subsequent sowing of the crops. 3. Petitioner is the first respondent and the first respondent is the petitioner, in the said application, before the Court below. 4. The Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, by a common judgment, dated 17.10.2005, decreed the suit O.S.No.39 of 2005, filed by the first respondent herein for permanent injunction, and dismissed the suit O.S.No.60 of 2004, filed by the revision petitioner for declaration and confirmatory possession. 5. The revision petitioner filed appeals-A.S.Nos.63 and 64 of 2006 before the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, challenging the common judgment rendered in O.S.Nos.60 of 2004 and 39 of 2005, respectively, and the same are pending. 6. Before the lower appellate Court, the first respondent herein filed an application I.A.No.921 of 2001 in A.S.No.63 of 2006, seeking to grant Police aid to cut away the standing crop (sababul crop) and the same was allowed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. The undisputed facts are that the first respondent herein was the auction purchaser of the petition schedule property, which was the subject matter of suit O.S.No.419 of 1999, on which basis, he filed the suit O.S.No.39 of 2005 for permanent injunction and the same was decreed, as already stated above. 8. When the said appeals came to be filed by the revision petitioner, the first respondent herein, taking advantage of having the decree in his favour in O.S.No.39 of 2005, resorted to file the present application seeking police protection. 9. As a matter of fact, when the first respondent herein obtained a decree against the revision petitioner, he ought to have filed an application, seeking for execution of the decree and for appropriate relief, including that of police protection, instead, he straightaway filed the present application, seeking police protection, in the said appeals, filed by the revision petitioner. 10. When the said appeals are filed and the same are pending, there must be a logical conclusion to the same. Till such time, it is not expedient to the lower appellate Court to pass an order like the present one by according police protection for the first respondent herein even without there being any application for execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2005. 11. The impugned order, passed by the lower appellate Court, virtually amounts to ordering the execution petition, in the absence of any such execution petition, during the appellate stage. While ordering police protection, the Courts, in normal course, ought to inquire into the matter with great caution. 12. In other words, police protection cannot be accorded for mere asking, that too, by the lower appellate Court, even without hearing the appeals, converting itself as a Court of execution. 13. In the upshot, and in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be held that the lower appellate Court passed the impugned order without any jurisdiction and application of mind and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.921 of 2009 in A.S.No.63 of 2006, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. However, it is made clear that the first respondent herein is at liberty to go for execution of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.39 of 2005 and seek appropriate relief. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 30th October 2009 DR