HONOUBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.15 OF 2007 ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.714 of 2006 in O.S.No.167 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, dated 19.12.2006. Respondent was served with notice. Respondent remained absent. Sri G.Venkat Reddy, counsel, advanced submissions on behalf of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.167 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, Kurnool District. It was a suit for perpetual injunction. The plaint schedule property consists of Ac.01.97 cents situate in S.No.274/B3, Guntakandala village, Kurnool District. The suit was decreed by the learned Junior Civil Judge on 17.03.2005. As the defendant, who is the revision petitioner herein, did not prefer any appeal from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.167 of 2000, the decree has become final. Subsequently, the defendant preferred O.S.No.100 of 2005 in respect of the same property. The suit was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur on the ground of res judicata. The defendant later laid O.S.No.189 of 2006 on the file of the same Court. The defendant claims that the property in O.S.No.189 of 2006 is not the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.167 of 2000. It was a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2000, against the father of the plaintiff and against the third party. The defendant obtained ad interim injunction in O.S.No.189 of 2006. While things stood thus, the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2000 laid I.A.No.714 of 2006 seeking for police aid. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned order appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to harvest the crop in the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that a police aid petition or an order to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner does not arise unless the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2000 had filed an execution petition. The plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2000 obtained a decree on 17.03.2005. Once the decree was passed, the trial Court had become functus officio. It is only the execution Court, which could pass orders relating to the reliefs that the decree holder sought for. What the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2000 was seeking was the police aid. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant that such a relief can be sought for by the plaintiff by laying an execution petition. As the Court has become functus officio once it passed the judgment in O.S.No.167 of 2000, the trial Court could not entertain an application in I.A.No.714 of 2006 for police aid. Consequently, the subsequent orders of the trial Court are not justified, as the very entertainment of I.A.No.714 of 2006 is erroneous. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned trial Judge are found to be erroneous and are set aside. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 7th December 2010 PNV