ORDER :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.09.2024 in I.A.No.170 of 2024 in I.A. No. 84 of 2024 in O.S. No. 20 of 2024, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Asifabad, whereby the said I.A., filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for Police Protection stands allowed. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents therein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2024 against the defendants, who are revision petitioners herein, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Sy.No.69/c, extent Acrs.1.1800 guntas, Sy.No.:70/a/1, extent Acrs 0.1160 guntas, Sy.No.70/a/2, extent Acrs 0.1160 guntas and Sy.No.70/C/1, extent of Acrs 0.1100 guntas, total admeasuring Acrs.2-1220 guntas situated at Jankapur village, Asifabad Mandal, Kumram Bheem District, and the trial Court granted ex parte temporary injunction on 07.06.2024 vide I.A.No. 84 of 2024, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the said land till 15.07.2024, and the said orders were served upon the respondents/defendants. The said ex-parte interim injunction order is in force.

3. In spite of temporary injunction orders, the respondents/defendants and their yes-men were threatening the petitioner/plaintiff with dire consequences and also obstructing his agricultural operations in the suit land by violating the injunction orders passed by the trial Court. As such, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition under Order 151 r/w Order 31 Rule–1 of the Civil Procedure Code vide I.A.No.170 of 2024 in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2024 for Police Protection and the same was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the trial Court without issuing any notice to the revision petitioners and without any evidence granted Police Aid to the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and others Vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others, 2010 (6) ALT 92, wherein it was observed as under:

“24…Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction arc tiled only to bring the defendants around the plaintiffs view and accept some via- media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil Court, an order of ex parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under section 151 of C PC seeking police protection, instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the Courts should be very very cautious and vigilant not to introduce police intervention in civil adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the civil Courts in the State of Andhra pradesh to exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by the party obtaining an order of injunction seeking police protection. For the guidance of all the civil Courts, we hold and lay down as under:

(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under