( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 115, CPC against the order dated 31. 5. 2003 passed in Exn 5/03. The petitioners are judgment debtors and respondents are decree holders who filed Exn 5/2003 for executing the decree for permanent injunction granted in O S 92/93 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Malur. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they have preferred an appeal in R A 206/2002 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Kolar. The decree, holders having filed execution of the decree inter alia made an application, I A I under order XXI Rule 32 (1) and (5) read with sec 151, CPC seeking police protection in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trail Court has allowed the request. Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel of the parties. ( 4 ) IF there is defiance of decree, the respondents-decree holders can execute the same as contemplated under order XXI Rule 32, CPC by seeking detention of Judgment - debtors and also by attachment of property, if the facts so warrant. During the pendency of the execution application, seeking the relief of police protection to protect their possession is untenable Police protection can be granted only for the limited purpose of effective execution of the decree. In the present application, the decree holders want protection of their possession of the property by watch and ward by the police such a request is untenable in law. ( 5 ) ASSUMING for a moment that such direction can be given by the civil Court, perhaps there would be a flood of such requests and the entire police force available as of now may have to be used only for that purpose, abandoning other duties relating to law and order and crime investigation. In that view of the matter, the order passed on I A I is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. --- *** --- .