ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section

115 of C.P.C seeking to set aside the Order dated 28.07.2017 passed in E.A.No.03 of 2015 in E.P.No.07 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Gajwel.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Judgment Debtors.

3. Perused the record.

4. The respondent who is a decree holder filed the suit in O.S.No.23 of 1994 for perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 04.03.1994. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.07 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 10, 11(2), 11(A), 22, 32 of C.P.C. for the detention of the Judgment Debtors in Civil Prison and for the attachment of the moveable properties of Judgment Debtors. While the said proceedings are pending, the respondent filed E.A.No.3 of 2015 under Section 151 C.P.C seeking to direct the Station House Officer, P.S. Gowraram to implement the decree, dated 04.03.1994 stating that the Judgment Debtors intentionally, highhandedly raised construction over the subject property by willfully violating the decree passed by the Trial Court.

6. The Judgment Debtors filed counter in the said E.A. stating that the said application is not maintainable, in view of the fact that already E.P. was filed for attachment of moveable properties. On a consideration of material on record, the Trial Court vide order dated 28.07.2017 allowed the E.A. and directed the Station House Officer, P.S. Gowraram to implement the decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 1994.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present C.R.P. is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/Judgment Debtors submit that the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C for implementation of decree is not maintainable when the decree holder already filed E.P. for execution of decree. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has committed error in passing the impugned order and prayed to set aside the same. He also relies upon the judgment in Golikota Reddy vs. Goli Raja Gopal Reddy and others1 para 7 of the said Judgment reads as under:

(cid:147)7. without commenting on the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that in an execution petition under Order 21 which is pending before the Executing Court, at no point of time the Civil Courts can refer the matter o implementation of the decree, to the police. If this course is adopted it will be the negation of the rights of the judgment-debtor available under Order 21. Unless and until the execution petition is finally heard there cannot be any question of sending it to the police for implementation.(cid:148)

Further in D. Tulja Devi and others vs. Margam Shankar and another2, the Division Bench of this Court at paras 10, 11 reads as under:

(cid:147)10. the civil Court passed a decree fro injunction.

Execution petition was filed praying for the detention of judgment debtor in civil prison unless he obeys the decree of the Court. Notice was ordered therein. The petitioners

1 AIR 2001 AP 110

2 2010 (2) ALD 732 (DB)

also filed execution application for grant of police aid. The same was ordered ex parte. When the judgment debtors moved application, the earlier order was kept in abeyance in effect withdrawing police protection, aggrieved by which, civil revision petition was filed. The question before the learned Single Judge was whether police could have been directed to implement the decree. Answering the question in the negative, this Court observed as under:

The question is, whether police can be used for executing a decree of the Court? In the first instance, let it be pointed out that the petitioner had moved an application for getting the decree executed and he had also stated in his application that since the decree is being violated therefore the respondent should be sent to civil prison. In these circumstances, whether police could have been directed to implement the decree? This Court feels that under no circumstance the police can be asked to impleme