IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5579 OF 2010 Between:- Sirajuddin and 3 others …Petitioner A n d Purasthu Chinnanna …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5579 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 09-09-2010 in I.A.No.97 of 2010 in O.S.No.17 of 2010, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, wherein the said application filed by the respondent- plaintiff seeking police aid, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.59 of 2010 for temporary injunction. By order dated, 16-04-2010, interim injunction was granted in plaintiff’s favour. The petitioners/defendants filed counter along with documents opposing the plea for temporary injunction and I.A.No.59 of 2010 is pending enquiry. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.97 of 2010 purporting to be under Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC seeking police protection for removal of the tin shed alleged to have been erected by the defendants illegally. In the petition and also the affidavit, the plaintiff prayed for police protection to enable him to remove the temporary tin shed and also protect his possession over the suit property. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order, directed as follows:- “It is therefore felt necessary to provide police protection to the petitioner in respect of plaint schedule property only and thereby protect his rights in respect of suit schedule property for which this court granted injunction. The any encroachment and illegal construction in respect of plaint schedule property shall be removed with the assistance of police and the police shall verify and take all reasonable steps to locate the suit schedule property as per the records and the description of the suit schedule property is enclosed to the order of this court for strict compliance.” By virtue of the above orders, the trial Court has virtually abdicated its responsibility by directing the police to localize the suit property as per records and description of the schedule property and remove the encroachments and illegal constructions in respect of the plaint schedule property and also to protect the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Even without deciding as to whether or not there was any encroachment and whether or not the alleged constructions are illegal and whether or not the said constructions were made by the defendants, as alleged, the trial Court has outsourced the entire adjudicatory process to the police. 4. In a recent decision in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI AND OTHERS v. PARCHURI KOTESHWARA RAO AND OTHERS[1], a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an application for grant of police protection has issued certain guidelines to the Subordinate Courts in the following terms: 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 Chottu 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”. 5. Obviously, the trial Court was not aware of the above guidelines issued by this Court. Be that as it may, when the defendants have filed a counter opposing grant of temporary injunction and I.A.No.59 of 2010 is pending enquiry, the approach of the trial Court in granting police aid to the plaintiff in the manner it was done in the impugned order and giving various directions to the police unasked for, is wholly unjustified. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to dispose of I.A.No.59 of 2010, on its merits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is held totally unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th February, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2010(2) ALD 41 (DB)