Respondents 1 to 3 obtained a decree of perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners and others. Questioning the said decree, revision petitioners and 5th respondent preferred A.S. No.16 of 2005 to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. But stay of operation of the decree under appeal was not granted therein.

2. Alleging that revision petitioners and others in spite of the decree of injunction against them are trying to interfere with their possession over and are trying to dispossess them from the plaint schedule property through hired gundas, respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.193 of 2006 seeking a direction to the Police, Puttaparthy Urban, to provide police protection to them. The trial Court, by the order impugned in this revision, granted police protection to respondents 1 to 3. Questioning the said order this revision is preferred.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that earlier when respondents 1 to 3 filed E.A.No.241 of 2005 seeking the same relief, the executing Court allowed that petition and granted police aid, and when a revision questioning that order was preferred in CRP No. 5995 of 2005, this Court set aside the said order holding that in case of violation of a decree granting perpetual injunction the decree holder has to seek the remedies available in CPC but cannot seek police protection for implementation of such decree and thereafter respondents 1 to 3 filed a petition for the same relief on the original side, and the Court below, without properly appreciating the contentions raised, erroneously granted police aid. The learned counsel also relied on J.JAGANNATH REDDY VS. L.LAXMI DEVI (SMT.) AND ORS.(1) where it was held that the remedy open in case of violation of decree for perpetual injunction is to proceed under Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC but not by way of seeking police protection. He also relied on GOLIKOTA REDDY VS. GOLI RAJA GOPALA REDDY AND OTHERS(2) where it is held that civil Court cannot refer the matter of implementation of a decree for perpetual injunction to police, as it will be the negation of the right of the Judgment debtor available under Order 21 CPC, and that the executing Court, without deciding the application filed under Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC, cannot refer the matter to police for implementation of the decree.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the decree holder is since the court below allowed the petition basing on the ratio in KAJA SHOUKAT ALI & ORS.. VS. SMT. KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM & ORS.(3) there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.

5. After obtaining a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioners and others from interfering with their possession over the plaint schedule property respondents 1 to 3 filed E.P. for recovery of the costs awarded to them, and filed E.A.No.241 of 2005 therein seeking police protection for implementation of the decree obtained by them. When the executing Court allowed the said E.A.No.241 of 2005 revision petitioners preferred CRP No.5995 of 2005 in which that order granting police aid was set aside on the ground that such a petition is not maintainable in an E.P. for recovery of costs. Therefore, the decree holders/respondents 1 to 3 filed a petition on the original side under Section 151 CPC seeking police protection.

6. Since no suit for perpetual injunction is pending before the trial Court there is no scope for its granting an ‘interlocutory relief on such petition, because a decree was already passed in the suit. It is well known that the life of interlocutory orders passed in the suit would be till the date of disposal of the suit only and so such interlocutory order will not and cannot survive beyond the date of decree of the suit. Though no doubt order of attachment of property would continue even after disposal of the suit till Court sale or fill it is raised by the court that passed the order of attachment or a superior cour