In this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) assailed order dated 04-12-2012 passed in I.A.No.175 of 2010 in I.A.No.1071 of 2009 in O.S.No.240 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

2. The respondent herein, who is also the petitioner in the I.A. in question and plaintiff in the suit, filed that suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he got lease in respect of the quarry which is the subject matter of the suit whereas without any manner of right the petitioners involved in damaging the quarry on 19-12-2009 and he also filed the I.A.No.1071 of 2009 for granting ad-interim injunction/temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioners herein who are the respondents in the I.As and defendants in the suit and obtained ad-interim injunction. Later he filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. After hearing both parties, it is observed and held by the Court below:

“In this petition both the parties did not file any documents. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry. However, in the decision 2nd read above as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court held that granting police aid does not show any favour to the plaintiff, but, it would amount to taking steps for effective implementation of the Court’s order and thereby upholding the dignity of the judiciary. It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted. What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court.”

With those observations, the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that one G. Venkata Reddy got lease in respect of the subject matter. It was later transferred in the name of the second respondent. The first respondent got no right of any manner over the quarry but he approached the Court with unclean hands. Thereby he claims that it was not proper to grant police aid to implement the order in question without effectively determining the actual question of legal possession over the quarry. Nowhere in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provided granting of police aid without resorting to the provisions of Section 94 CPC or Order XXI Rule 32 CPC whereas the question of application of Section 151 CPC does not arise when there are specific provisions in that context. In support of his plea he has relied upon the decision in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI v. PARCHURI KOTESHWARA RAO (2010(2) ALD 41 (DB).

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the question involved is purely relating to the implementation of the order already passed. When the civil Court passed the order, that Court got all powers to entertain it either approaching under Section 94 or Order XXI Rule 32 or 151 CPC whereby it is not proper to impose any restriction against the Court below in the context of implementing the order.

5. Thereby it is necessary to examine the ambit of Section 94 and 151, Order XXXIX Rule, 1, 2 and 2-A and Order XXI Rule 32 CPC they being relevant here.

Section 94 CPC enjoins –

“Supplemental proceedings. -In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,-

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show-cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furni