N. SATHYANARAYANA Vs. KISTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/decree holders, challenging the order, dated 19.08.2019, passed in E.A.No.2 of 2018 in E.P.No.3 of 2018 in O.S.No.5 of 2009, by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners/decree holders under Section 151 of C.P.C. to direct the police, Damaragidda, to provide police aid to protect their possession over the land in Survey No.40/A admeasuring Acs.9.16 guntas situated at Bapanpally, Damarigadda, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders and perused the record. Though the sole respondent/judgment debtor is served with notice, there is no representation on her behalf.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders would contend that the subject interlocutory application filed by the petitioners/decree holders under Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant police aid to protect their possession over the land in Survey No.40/A admeasuring Acs.9.16 guntas situated at Bapanpally, Damarigadda, was dismissed by the Court below holding that the petitioners/decree holders, having invoked provision under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which prescribes mode of execution in violation of a decree for perpetual injunction, cannot invoke inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC, which is erroneous. Since there was continuous interference from the side of the respondent/judgment debtor, the Court below ought to have granted police protection and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders had relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Raja Venkateswarlu Vs. Mada Venkata Subbaiah, 2017 15 SCC 659.