ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the trial Court dated 12.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.368 of 2023 in I.A.No.204 of 2023 in O.S.No.83 of 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Achampet.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

3. An application is filed by the petitioner herein for police protection as there is violation of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court but it was dismissed by the trial Court against which she preferred this revision petition and mainly contended that granting of Ad-interim injunction is of no use, if its implementation cannot be fructified and further stated that mere attaching the properties of the respondents and detaining the respondents in the civil imprisonment, no purpose would be served and unless the revision petitioner is granted police aid, he is not able to protect the suit schedule property from being interfered and damaged by the respondents and requested to set aside the order.

4. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.83 of 2023 during the pendency of the proceedings, I.A.No.204 of 2023 is filed for Ad-interim injunction and it was granted by the trial Court on 20.04.2023 even after granting the temporary injunction respondents herein interfering with her possession on 08.05.2023 and 09.05.2023 and immediately she gave a complaint and copy of the complaint was filed before this Court and later she also filed an application before the trial Court for granting of police and but it was dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a citation in “Vangeti Bal Reddy and Ors. Vs. Karagani Balaiah and Ors.” 1 and in para No.6 of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in “Polavarapu Nagamani & Others”

case wherein it was held that:

“(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 XX1, Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule-2A of CPC seeking 1 2013 Law Suit (AP) 601 attachment and/or arrest of the violation for contempt of the Court.

(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under Section 94 (e) or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order of police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.

(iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad-interim injunction alleging that there is threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party.

(iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities.”

5. When once this Court granted an order of injunction it is for us to implement the same directing the petitioner to have report under Order XXI Rule 32 or the Contempt of Courts Act is not proper and accordingly police aid was granted to prevent disobedience and violation of the ad-interim order. Therefore, relying upon the citation, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the order of the trial Court.

6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside order of the trial Court dated 12.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.368 of 2023 in I.A.No.204 of 2023 in O.S.No.83 of 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil Judg