ORDER :

Heard on both sides.

2. Challenge in this civil revision petition is the order of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medak in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.07 of 2015, by which the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking police aid, with an observation that the aggrieved party though obtained an order of temporary injunction cannot seek for police aid for implementation of the said order invoking Section 151 CPC and if necessary, has to file an application for contempt under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. or to resort to Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C.

3. Though notice was served upon the respondent, he failed to represent before the Court.

4. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the short point that falls for consideration is :

Whether Section 151 C.P.C. empowers a civil Court to grant police aid for proper implementation of its Order of temporary injunction granted under Order 39 C.P.C.

5. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No.746/E1 admeasuring Ac.0.41 ½ guntas and in Survey No.746/E2 admeasuring Ac.0.14 ½ guntas, totalling Ac.0.29 guntas of Narsingi Village of Medak District. I.A.No.46 of 2015 filed for temporary injunction was ordered on 09.02.2015 and on 06.03.2015, the said order was made absolute. Subsequently, the petitioner moved I.A.No.164 of 2017 contending that on 16.04.2017 the respondent tried to damage the standing paddy crop, but he resisted him with the help of adjacent land owners, but he left the place threatening to damage his paddy crop in future and on that he approached the police, Narsingi for help. But police refused to extend help on the ground that the case is civil in nature and they advised him to get protection orders from the Court and therefore, a direction has to be given to the police to give protection so that he could save his possession of the suit land and the standing paddy crop. The respondent resisted the application contending that the suit is of the year 2015 and he is ready to produce evidence on his behalf and in the meantime, grant of police protection is not required. Learned Judge of the trial Court, dismissed the application with the following observations.

“...Order XXI Rule 32 is the procedure which has to be resorted to for the executing the decree for injunction. When the law required that such a decree can be executed by attachment of the property of the judgment debtor or by detention in civil prison or both, there cannot be a third method of directing police to ensure obedience for decree of perpetual injunction. It will be altogether different matter to direct the police to take the judgment debtor into custody for violation of decree of perpetual injunction and direct the authorities of civil prison to detain the judgment debtor in the prison. The power of arrest and detention may not include the power to direct the police to ensure due obedience of the decree of perpetual injunction.”

6. Sections 36 to 74 C.P.C. deals with the execution of decrees and Order 21 C.P.C. contains elaborate procedure for execution of decrees passed by the civil Courts.

7. The learned Judge of the trial Court mainly based her reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of D.Tulja Devi and others v Margam Shankar and another, 2010(2) ALD 732 (DB). But the facts of the said case are distinguishable. The petitioners in the said case, who are the plaintiffs to the suit filed a suit for permanent injunction and a decree was passed in their favour and thereafter they filed an Execution Petition (EP) and in the said Execution Petition they filed an Execution Application (EA) under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to direct the Station House Officer to ensure due obedience of the decree passed by t