V.V.S. Rao, J.

(1) Introduction: These two miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise between the same parties out of two separate interlocutor}' orders in the same suit. The appellants are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants. They are referred to as such In this order.

(2) Be it noted that initially this Court suspended the order in J A No.412 of 2009 where under the Court below directed police protection to defendants. Then they moved an application to vacate the interim suspension. At that stage itself, with the consent of the Counsel for both the sides, the matter is heard finally,

(3) These two appeals involve an important question with regard to power of civil Court to direct the police to give police protection to plaintiffs or defendants to safeguard the subject property in the suit pending adjudication. What arc the remedies available to a party when an order of injunction is violated or there is a threat of such violation? When a party to the suit alleges violation of an order of ad interim injunction granted by civil Court, what is the standard of proof required for the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 154 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and direct the police to give protection to safeguard the property and whether the Court can ignore the specific provisions contained in CPC and exercise powers under Section 151 of CPC. These and others are the questions that arise for consideration. Before taking up these issues, the background facts may be noticed as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. Brief fads of the case

(4) Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are legal heirs / representatives of one Polavarapu Nageswara Rao and plaintiff No.4 is legal representative of Mandava Ramaiah. These four persons instituted OS No.29 of 2009 on the ; file of the Court of the Special Judge for : Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum - V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, against 118 defendants for partition, separate possession and cancellation of as many as 24 sale deeds executed by some defendants in favour of 40 defendants in the suit. In the suit, the plaintiffs prayed for a preliminary decree partitioning plaint schedule properties admeasuring Acs, 1,357.52 guntas comprised in as many as 74 survey numbers (74 fields) of Hakimpet fields of Yeldurthy Mandal in Medak District (hereafter called, plaint schedule property). The plaintiffs alleged that their predecessors and 31 others purchased a total extent of Acs.2,054.32 guntas of land in Hakimpet Village from successors of Syed Ahmed AH Khan under registered sale deed dated 24,6,1960, that considering the declarations filed by the vendees the Land Reforms Tribunal under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, declared 14 of them as surplus land holders to the extent of Acs. 5 74.22 guntas, it was taken over by the Government, that the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired Acs.231.68 for the purpose of submergence of Haldivagu project after paying the compensation, that all the 33 owners filed OP No.211 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Medak, seeking enhancement of the compensation, which was allowed and that EP No.91 of 2007 filed by them by executing the decree in O.P. No.211 of 2005 is pending. They further alleged that the remaining extent of Acs.1,357.52 is in joint and common possession of all the purchasers, that the shares are already decided as per the contribution to the total sale consideration, that as many as 21 original purchasers died leaving behind their successors (who are defendants to the suit) that some of the purchasers sold the property under various sale deeds and that some of the defendants are claiming their right under the Wills executed by some purchasers and that in spite of demands made by plaintiffs in second week of January, 2009, defendants 1