ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/JDr No.1 under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, in E.A.No.589 of 2008 in E.P.No.218 of 2008 in O.S.No.300 of 1998 wherein and whereby the executing Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid for the execution of decree of mandatory injunction.

2. The case of the respondent/DHr No.2 before executing Court in brief is that:

Trial Court passed decree of mandatory injunction in their favour as per the plan appended to the decree and then they filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 35 of C.P.C for delivery of execution petition schedule property. He submits that Court Ameen came to execution petition schedule property along with plaint plan met him on 19.10.2008 at execution petition schedule property situated in Thadiparru village for delivery of the property for which the 1stJDr i.e., petitioner herein came and attacked them and obstructed for the delivery of property as per the decree. It is the contention of the respondent/DHr No.2 that though appeal is pending, no stay is granted due to that for implementation of orders of the Court police aid is required. He prays to direct Station House Officer, Undrajuvaram police to provide police aid in implementation of decree and also at the time of handing over the property to them.

3. The revision petitioner/R.1 filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit of the respondent before trial Court. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that there is no direction in the decree for delivery of property to the respondent/DHr No.2 and they preferred A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku against the Judgment and decree passed by trial Court, which is pending wherein they also filed petition for stay of execution in which the respondent sought time to file counter and recently filed counter, which is coming up for hearing. He submits that execution petition filed under Order XXI Rue 35 C.P.C is not maintainable and petition has to be filed under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C and before passing of any order notice has to be issued to them and if any violation of orders of the Court Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C specifies to attach the property of violator and send him to civil prison but relief claimed by the respondent in execution petition and also in police aid petition are not tenable. He also pleaded about pendency of appeal against the decree and Judgment passed by trial Court and another litigation in respect of same property. He prays to dismiss the petition.

4. Before executing Court the respondent himself examined as PW.1 and also examined another witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1, A.2 and X.1. On behalf of the revision petitioners, RWs. 1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. After hearing both sides court below allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed Station House Officer concerned to provide assistance for delivery of execution petition schedule property to the respondent/DHr.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, the revision petitioner filed this petition stating that orders passed by the Court below are not sustainable either in law or on facts, which are liable to be set aside. He submits that petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C seeking police aid is not at all maintainable, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no necessity for taking such police aid. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that in a suit for recovery of possession the question of providing police protection or police aid is not maintainable in execution petition stage and Court Ameen, who deposed as PW.2 has stated that he went to serve the Court warrant on 19.10.2008, which also served on JDrs, which shows that there is no resistance on their part and question of providing police aid is not at