IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P. No.63 of 2011 Between: Nareddy Prabhakar Reddy .. Petitioner AND A. Ram Reddy and another .. Respondents ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A. No.450 of 2010 in I.A. No.701 of 2008 in O.S. No.175 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Shadnagar, dated 16-12- 2010 by which the petition filed by the plaintiff for grant of police aid for implementation of the injunction order granted in I.A. No.701 of 2008, dated 04-10-2010 was dismissed without costs. The request of the plaintiff for police aid was on the ground of the respondents coming to the suit schedule land on 29-10-2010 and obstructing the agricultural operations of the plaintiff threatening him with dire consequences. The respondents denied any such incident of interference with the possession of the plaintiff or threatening him. The trial Court, on such pleadings, passed the impugned order noting that in the suit for perpetual injunction, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff on merits on 04-10- 2010 and hence, the plaintiff must proceed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to execute the order of temporary injunction, but the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked. For this purpose, the trial Court relied on the decision of this Court in B. Ramakrishna v. M. Nagaraju (2006(3) LS 396). The plaintiff approached this Court with this revision contending that the decision relied on by the trial Court is related to a case after passing of a decree for perpetual injunction in the suit, while the request of the plaintiff is in respect of a temporary injunction pending the suit, which can be permitted in the light of the six decisions cited in the memorandum of civil revision petition. Heard Sri V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Ramesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. The point for consideration is whether the request for grant of police aid is unsustainable in law for aiding in the implementation of the order of temporary injunction ? Point: The trial Court referred to B. Rama Krishna and another v. M. Naga Raju and others[1] as disabling the plaintiff from seeking police aid for implementation of the order of temporary injunction. However, it is seen from the said decision that the police aid requested there, by the plaintiff therein was to aid in the implementation of a decree for perpetual injunction. The learned Judge relying on the earlier precedents on the aspect observed that when no suit for perpetual injunction is pending before trial Court, there is no scope for granting any interlocutory relief and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked for grant of police aid only if there was no decree. The learned Judge concluded that when no proceeding is pending before the trial Court and when the decree-holder has a right to execute the decree in the event of its violation or threatened violation, the remedy is by way of execution under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was due to the fact that there should be a decision judicially whether there is any wilful disobedience or not of the permanent injunction passed against the judgment- debtor. Therefore, the decision has absolutely no application to the request of the plaintiff for grant of police aid for implementation of the temporary injunction in his favour. The revision petitioner has rightly referred to the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court on the subject, which permitted grant of police protection in aid of a temporary injunction in appropriate cases depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the trial Court has, in fact, to decide whether the allegations of the plaintiff stated as the basis for the request for grant of police aid, are probable or not on the material on record and if they are probable, to consider whether grant of police aid is the effective means of aiding in implementation of the interim orders granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on merits. Such determination on merits is, hence, called for from the trial Court, for which purpose the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court. Therefore, the order passed in I.A. No.450 of 2010 in I.A. No.701 of 2008 in O.S. No.175 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Shadnagar, dated 16-12-2010 is set aside and I.A. No.450 of 2010 is remitted back to the trial Court for determination in accordance with law on merits after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The trial Court, in view of the apprehensions expressed by the plaintiff, shall make such determination within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-07-2011 Svv [1] 2007(1) ALD 148