1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the executing Court’) in E.A.No.2 of 2024 in E.P.No.159 of 2024 in O.S.No.421 of 2023, where under the application filed by the petitioner/decree holder seeking police protection for implementation of the decree dated 11.03.2024 in O.S.No.421 of 2023 in respect of the E.P. schedule property was dismissed.

2. Revision petitioner herein is the decree holder and respondents herein are the judgment debtors in the main E.P. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in E.P.No.159 of 2024 before the executing Court.

Brief facts of the case:

3. Petitioner/decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.421 of 2023 before the trial Court/executing Court for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/judgment debtors from interfering with the E.P. schedule property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-20 guntas in Sy.No.378, Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.378/1, Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.375/1/A, Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.376 and Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.378/1/1 in all aggregating to Ac.9-00 in a single compact block situated at Paloncha Revenue Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule property) stating that he had purchased the same from Ratanlal Baheti through registered sale deed bearing Nos.2796 of 2007 dated 02.11.2007, 2537 of 2010 dated 11.06.2010, 1356 of 2012 dated 19.03.2012, 72 of 2021 dated 9.12.2021. The said suit was decreed on 11.03.2024. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.159 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule-32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 for committing them to civil prison and also for grant of police protection for strict implementation of the decree by directing the S.H.O., Paloncha Town P.S. In the said E.P., the decree holder filed application vide E.A.No.2 of 2024 under Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking protection directing the S.H.O., Paloncha Town Police Station to provide necessary protection for implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction dated 11.03.2024. The executing Court dismissed the said E.A. on 17.04.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the decree holder filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Mrs.B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.Mohammad Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder and Mr.B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Ramu Nallamothu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 14/judgment debtors.

5. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/decree holder:

               5.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the decree holder is the absolute owner of the schedule property. In spite of the decree of perpetual injunction granted by the competent Civil Court, the judgment debtors, without having any manner of right, are interfering with the possession of the decree holder and they are trespassing into the schedule property and preventing the decree holder from entering into the schedule property and doing agricultural activities and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 11.03.2024 are binding upon them. In spite of the same, the judgment debtors have deliberately creating troubles to the decree holder. The decree holder filed several complaints against them and basing on the same, Crime No.109 of 2018 was registered on 14.04.2018, Crime No.283 of 2022 was registered on 25.08.2022, Crime No.467 of 2022 was registered on 21.12.2022 and Crime No.263 of 2024 was registered on 02.07.2024 and the said cases are pending before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothagudem. Subsequently when the judgment debtors are trying to interfere with the possession of the decree holder and preventing him from doing agricultural activities on 04.10.2025 and on 31.05.2026, the decree holder lodged the complaint against them before Paloncha Town Police Station, and based on the said complaint, Crime Nos.372 of 2025 and 250 of 2026 were registered.

               5.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the decree holder filed E.P.No.159 of 2024 to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 for committing them to civil prison, wherein the executing Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the E.P. on 17.04.2026 and issued warrant of arrest against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 on payment of process. Accordingly, the decree holder paid process. In the said E.P., the decree holder filed E.A.No.2 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking protection and to direct the S.H.O., Paloncha Town P.S. to provide necessary protection to the decree holder for implementation of the decree dated 11.03.2024.

               5.3 Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the executing Court without properly considering the contentions raised by the decree holder dismissed the E.A. solely on the ground that the decree holder had filed E.P. for arrest of judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9, which was allowed, and the execution proceedings have already been set in motion. Hence granting of police aid in addition to arrest of judgment debtors would amount to duplication of remedies and also the decree holder failed to place any independent material before the executing Court to demonstrate that despite of arrest of judgment debtors, there exists a present necessity requiring intervention of the police for implementation of decree. Though the relief sought in E.P.No.159 of 2024 and in E.A.No.2 of 2024 is different, mere filing of E.P. for arrest of the judgment debtors for committing civil prison is not a bar seeking police protection and the impugned order passed by the executing Court is contrary to law.

               5.4 In support of the above said contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the order of the High Court of the Karnataka at Bengaluru in Sri Balakrishna K.P. and another v. Sri. K.P.Puttaraju and others (Writ Petition No.51712 of 2019 (GM-CPC), dated 07.07.2025), wherein it was held that the Court is having power to grant police aid for seeking implementation of the temporary injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff and mere filing of application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. seeking action against the defendants for violation of injunction order would not impediment to entertain the application for police protection seeking for enforcement of the temporary injunction.

               5.5 Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttak in Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan and others (C.M.P No.140 of 2023, dated 12.12.2025), wherein it was held that the Court is having power to grant police aid for implementation of the ad interim injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner under Section 151 of the C.P.C.

               5.6 Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the order of the High Court Of Judicature at Madras in Lakshmi Ammal v. Nalina Ammal and others (C.R.P.(PD) No.1931 of 2021 and C.M.P No.15016 of 2021, dated 24.02.2022), wherein it was held that the execution Court is having power to grant police aid seeking implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. Hence filing of E.P under Order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C seeking arrest of the judgment debtors for committing them to civil prison under order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C is not bar for seeking police protection for implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction.

6. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/judgment debtors;

               6.1 Per contra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that E.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking police protection for implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction dated 11.03.2024 invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable under law and the executing Court has rightly dismissed the E.A. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned executing Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

               6.2 He further submitted that pursuant to the orders dated 17.04.2026 in E.P.No.159 of 2024, execution Court had issued warrants against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 and they were produced before the executing Court and they were sent to civil prison.

               6.3 In support of the above said contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in D.Tulja Devi and others Vs. Margam Shankar and another ((2010) 2 ALD 732), wherein it was held that the execution petition filed under order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C for execution of the decree for perpetual injunction by arrest and detention of judgment debtor to civil prison or by attachment of property or both, pending consideration of such petition, the executing Court cannot direct the police to ensure obedience to the decree, while exercising the powers under section 151 of C.P.C. After the decree it become final or long thereafter, if there is a violation of injunction, by the judgment debtor, the Court which passed the decree can order detention of the judgment debtors and attachment of property.

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.421 of 2023 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the judgment debtors from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In the said suit, the judgment debtors were remained ex-parte and the executing Court on 11.03.2024 passed the judgment and decree in favour of the decree holder restraining the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 14 from interfering with the schedule property. Even according to both the parties, the said decree has become final.

8. The record further reveals that the decree holder filed E.P.No.159 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C. seeking to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 and for committing them to civil prison and also grant police protection for strict implementation of the decree by directing the S.H.O., Paloncha Town Police Station.

9. In the said E.P., the decree holder was examined as PW.1 and on his behalf Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. The executing Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both the parties allowed the E.P. in part on 17.04.2026, and issued warrant of arrest against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the C.P.C. on payment of process and posted the matter to 04.05.2026.

10. In the said E.P., the decree holder also filed E.A.No.2 of 2024 in the month of July 2024 invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. to grant police protection in his favour and against the judgment debtors for strict implementation of the decree over the schedule property, by directing the S.H.O., Paloncha Town P.S.

11. The record further reveals that the decree holder in his sworn affidavit filed in support of E.A. No.2 of 2024 stated that in spite of the decree of perpetual injunction granted in his favour on 11.03.2024, when he was attending his agricultural operations that is manuring in the schedule property, judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 intentionally in gross disobedience of the said decree, obstructed him from doing the same and therefore, sought police protection in his favour. The entire allegations are levelled against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 only and no allegations are levelled against the other judgment debtors.

12. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for judgment debtors submitted that subsequent to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 were arrested and produced before the executing Court and they were sent to civil prison. The said submissions have not been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for decree holder.

13. It is already stated supra that the petitioner in his application i.e. E.A.No.2 of 2024 has not made any allegations against judgment debtor Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10 to 14 that they are disobeying the decree of injunction and obstructing from doing agricultural activities in the schedule property and entire allegations are levelled against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 only and they were already sent to civil prison pursuant to the order dated 17.04.2026 passed in E.P.No.159 of 2024.

14. It is trite law that solely basing upon the relief sought in the application, the party cannot seek police protection for implementation of decree of perpetual injunction, in the absence of any pleading. In the case on hand, the decree holder filed E.A. No.2 of 2024 against judgment debtor Nos.1 to 14 seeking police protection for implementation of the injunction order, whereas in the sworn affidavit filed by the decree holder, he made allegation against the judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 only that they are threatening him and interfering with his agricultural activities in the schedule property and no allegations were made against judgment debtor Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 and 10 to 14.

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to deal with the issue of ‘whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of police protection invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. for strict implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the schedule property or not’, in the present Civil Revision Petition and the above said issue is left open to the parties, on the ground that the order dated 17.04.2026 passed in E.P.No.159 of 2024 was already enforced against judgment debtor Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 and they were sent to civil prison and no allegations were made against the other judgment debtors in E.A.No.2 of 2024. The decree holder is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law, if so aggrieved. In the event of filing of any application, the executing Court is directed to consider the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observation made in the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 or in this order. The judgment debtors are also entitled to raise all the grounds which are available to them.

16. With the above said directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.