(Per V.V.S..Rao, J.)

The instant civil revision petition was listed before learned single Judge. The decision in Coli Kota Reddy v. Goli Raja Gopala Reddy (1) 2000 (6) ALT 580 = 2000 (6) ALD 449 = 2000 (3) LS 423 was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who having opined that a broad proposition cannot be laid down that under no circumstances the civil Court can direct the police to ensure due obedience of decree of perpetual injunction, referred the question to Division Bench. The question referred is whether the decision of the learned single fudge of this Court in Goli Kota Reddy v. Goli Raja Copala Reddy (1 supra) requires reconsideration?.

2. The fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioners (hereafter caned, decree holders/ D. Hrs) are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1442 of 2001. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction. The Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal decreed the suit on 25.09.2002 restraining the respondent (hereafter called judgment debtor/J.Dr) from invading plaintiffs rights or otherwise interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The D.Hrs., filed execution petition which is pending. Some time thereafter D.Hrs filed E.A.No.276 of 2005 purportedly under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court below to direct Station House Officer (SHO), p.s., Mills Colony, to ensure due obedience of the decree passed by the Court, against respondent, his family members, servants and other henchmen. The J.Dr., remained ex parte. On 16.12.2005, the Court below dismissed the application placing reliance on Goli Kota Reddy (1 supra). The Court below also referred to Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (2) (1989) 4 SCC 131 = AIR 1989 SC 2097, P.Shanker Rao v. B.Susheela (3) 2000 (2) AL T 606, Nirabai J.Patil v. Narayan D.PaW (4) AIR 2004 Bombay 225, Santam Singh v. Dr. Trilok Nath Chugh (5) 2005 (2) APLJ P&N 3 (DNC), Sangu Brahmam v. Station House Officer, Garidepalli P.S., Nalgonda (6) 2005 (3) ALD 772 = 2005 (2) APLJ 21 (HC) and Khaja Soukaat Ali v. Khairunnisa Begum (7) 2005 (3) APLJ 285 (HC). Aggrieved thereby, the decree holders filed the present civil revision petition.

3. The matter was listed before the Division Bench comprising of learned and noble brothers Justice B.Prakash Rao and Justice D.Appa Rao, JJ. They appointed Ms.A.Jayanthi as amicus curiae to assist the Court, who made elaborate submissions. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. They relied on Gordhanlalji v. Maksudan Ballabh (8) AIR 1918 All 152 = ILR 40 All 648, Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal (9) AIR 1962 SC 1044, Rayapati Audemmav. Pothineni Narasimham (10) AIR 1971 A.P. 53, Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S., Santhoshnagar (11) 1982 (2) ALT 161 = AIR 1982 A.P. 394, Panka Lal v. Santosh Kumar (12) AIR 1984 Calcutta 232, Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha (13) (1991) 4 SCC 379 = AIR 1991 SC 2251, Vinedale Distilleries Limited v. San man Distributors Limited (14) 1993 (2) APLJ 5 (SN), Shrimati Ratnabai v. Satwarao (15) AIR 1995 Bombay 61, Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Limited (16) AIR 1996 SC 2005, J. Jagannath Reddy v. Smt L.Laxmi Devi (17) 1998 (1) ALT 461, P. Shanker Rao (supra), Goli Kota Reddy (supra), Sangu Brahmam (supra) and P.S. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (18) (2006) 4 SCC 501.

4. In an unreported Judgment, dated 24.11.2009, in C.M.A.Nos.1021 and 1128 of

2009, this Bench has considered the power of civil Court under Section 94(e) and Section 151 of CPC to grant an order directing the police to give protection for implementing/enforcing an order of temporary injunction. After referring to the various decisions some of which are also referred to by the counsel in this case, we have held 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 seek