THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.1892 of 2010 ORDER: 1. Challenging the order dated 11.03.2010 in I.A.No.43 of 2010 in I.A.No.553 of 2009 in O.S.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-first defendant. 2. The above interlocutory application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the first respondent-plaintiff for grant of police aid and to direct the Station House Officer, Dharmajigudem Police Station to implement the interim injunction order dated 16.1.2010 in I.A.No.553 of 2009. That application was allowed. Hence, the present revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant contended that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property and that by virtue of the interim injunction order and police aid, the first respondent-plaintiff is trying to lay a gravel road, even though there was no road existing as on the date of filing of the suit itself and that for implementing the interim injunction order, the police aid cannot be granted and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. In spite of service, none appears for respondent No.1. 5. The principle with regard to grant of police aid is no longer res integra. This Court in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI AND OTHERS v PARCHURI KOTESHWARA RAO AND OTHERS[1] held as follows: “For the guidance of all the civil Courts, we hold and lay down as under. (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 Chottue 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.” So, from the above decision, it is clear that unless the case of the party falls under any one of the above principles, the police aid cannot be granted. The Court has the power to order police protection by imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with life and liberty. So, unless there is an allegation that the acts of petitioner are likely to affect the life, liberty and rights of the opposite party, police aid cannot be granted. As seen from the affidavit filed in the support of the petition, the relevant portion interalia reads as follows: “After an elaborate enquiry your Hon’ble Court allowed I.A.No.553/2009 on 16.01.2010, and granted an injunction order in my favour, against the respondents in respect of the plaint schedule property. After that on 18.01.2010 while I was laying gravel road in item No.1 of plaint schedule by removing the weeds in it, the respondents obstructed me and threatening with dire consequences. The respondents sending women folk to impede my work to form a gravel road.” As seen from the above, there is no allegation that the acts of petitioner are likely to affect the life, liberty and rights of the first respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 25.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.1892 of 2010 Dt. 25.02.2011 [1] 2010(2) ALD 41 (DB)