Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 103 of 2012 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Nalgonda District are the petitioners in the present Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Civil Revision Petition assails the order dated 1.7.2014 passed by the said Court, allowing I.A. No.3 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) seeking police-aid for implementation of the injunction order dated 13.3.2013 granted in I.A. No.278 of 2012.

3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as infra.

3.1 The respondent herein instituted suit O.S. No.103 of 2012 against the petitioners herein, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule agricultural land, admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas situated in Sy.No.1073/A of Ananthagiri Revenue Village, Venkatrampuram Gram Panchayat limits of Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No.278 of 2012 under Order 39 Rules 1 and2 read with Section 151 of the Code for interim injunction and the learned Judge allowed the said I.A. by way of order dated 13.3.2013, granting injunction. In the said injunction application, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed the present I.A. No.3 of 2014 under Section 151 of Code, seeking police-aid for implementation of the injunction order. The defendants/petitioners herein filed a counter, resisting the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by way of order dated 1.7.2014, allowed the said I.A. No.3 of 2014, granting police-aid. The said order is under challenge in the present Revision.

4. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P. Prabhakar Rao.

4.1 The order impugned is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the provisions of the Code.

4.2 The learned Judge Civil Judge grossly erred in giving police-aid as the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an order.

4.3 Police-aid cannot be given for mere asking, unless the circumstances, warranting the same exist.

4.4 Since an alternative procedure is available under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, the present application is not maintainable under Section 151of the Code.

4.5 In view of pendency of suit O.S. No.88 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet for declaration and permanent injunction, the present application for police-aid for implementation of the injunction order cannot be entertained.

4.6 The learned Judge did not record any valid reasons for granting police-aid in favour of plaintiff/respondent herein.

4.7 There is no evidence on record adduced by the plaintiff to show the alleged interference by the petitioners herein, as such the learned Judge grossly erred in allowing the application.

In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments in Polavarapu Nagamani and others v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy.

5. Submissions/contentions of learned counsel for respondent Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy.

5.1 The order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is neither material irregularity nor illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the present revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.2 The learned Junior Civil Judge is justified in granting police-aid for implementation of the injunction order, against which no appeal has been filed by the petitioners herein.

5.3 Since the plaintiff laid sufficient foundation in support of his complaint, the petitioners herein cannot be permitted to contend that they are not interfering.

5.4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 151 of Code cannot be invoked is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In support of his case, the learned counsel