ORDER (Per V.V.S..Rao, J.) The instant civil revision petition was listed before learned single Judge. The decision in Coli Kota Reddy v. Goli Raja Gopala Reddy (1) 2000 (6) ALT 580 = 2000 (6) ALD 449 = 2000 (3) LS 423 was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who having opined that a broad proposition cannot be laid down that under no circumstances the civil Court can direct the police to ensure due obedience of decree of perpetual injunction, referred the question to Division Bench. The question referred is whether the decision of the learned single fudge of this Court in Goli Kota Reddy v. Goli Raja Copala Reddy (1 supra) requires reconsideration?. 2. The fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioners (hereafter caned, decree holders/ D. Hrs) are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1442 of 2001. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction. The Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal decreed the suit on 25.09.2002 restraining the respondent (hereafter called judgment debtor/J.Dr) from invading plaintiffs rights or otherwise interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The D.Hrs., filed execution petition which is pending. Some time thereafter D.Hrs filed E.A.No.276 of 2005 purportedly under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court below to direct Station House Officer (SHO), p.s., Mills Colony, to ensure due obedience of the decree passed by the Court, against respondent, his family members, servants and other henchmen. The J.Dr., remained ex parte. On 16.12.2005, the Court below dismissed the application placing reliance on Goli Kota Reddy (1 supra). The Court below also referred to Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (2) (1989) 4 SCC 131 = AIR 1989 SC 2097 , P.Shanker Rao v. B.Susheela (3) 2000 (2) AL T 606, Nirabai J.Patil v. Narayan D.PaW (4) AIR 2004 Bombay 225, Santam Singh v. Dr. Trilok Nath Chugh (5) 2005 (2) APLJ P&N 3 (DNC), Sangu Brahmam v. Station House Officer, Garidepalli P.S., Nalgonda (6) 2005 (3) ALD 772 = 2005 (2) APLJ 21 (HC) and Khaja Soukaat Ali v. Khairunnisa Begum (7) 2005 (3) APLJ 285 (HC). Aggrieved thereby, the decree holders filed the present civil revision petition. 3. The matter was listed before the Division Bench comprising of learned and noble brothers Justice B.Prakash Rao and Justice D.Appa Rao, JJ. Aggrieved thereby, the decree holders filed the present civil revision petition. 3. The matter was listed before the Division Bench comprising of learned and noble brothers Justice B.Prakash Rao and Justice D.Appa Rao, JJ. They appointed Ms.A.Jayanthi as amicus curiae to assist the Court, who made elaborate submissions. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. They relied on Gordhanlalji v. Maksudan Ballabh (8) AIR 1918 All 152 = ILR 40 All 648, Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal (9) AIR 1962 SC 1044 , Rayapati Audemmav. Pothineni Narasimham (10) AIR 1971 A.P. 53 , Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S., Santhoshnagar (11) 1982 (2) ALT 161 = AIR 1982 A.P. 394 , Panka Lal v. Santosh Kumar (12) AIR 1984 Calcutta 232, Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha (13) (1991) 4 SCC 379 = AIR 1991 SC 2251 , Vinedale Distilleries Limited v. San man Distributors Limited (14) 1993 (2) APLJ 5 (SN), Shrimati Ratnabai v. Satwarao (15) AIR 1995 Bombay 61, Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Limited (16) AIR 1996 SC 2005 , J. Jagannath Reddy v. Smt L.Laxmi Devi (17) 1998 (1) ALT 461 , P. Shanker Rao (supra), Goli Kota Reddy (supra), Sangu Brahmam (supra) and P.S. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (18) (2006) 4 SCC 501 . 4. In an unreported Judgment, dated 24.11.2009, in C.M.A.Nos.1021 and 1128 of 2009, this Bench has considered the power of civil Court under Section 94(e) and Section 151 of CPC to grant an order directing the police to give protection for implementing/enforcing an order of temporary injunction. After referring to the various decisions some of which are also referred to by the counsel in this case, we have held as under. (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 XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of CPC, depending on the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of CPC, depending on the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for 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 a 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 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 in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Clwttu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (19) (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (20) (2002) 4 SCC 21 = 2002 (4) AL T 5.2 (DNSC), in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self-serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court. 5. In the case on hand, petitioners obtained decree for permanent injunction. They filed E.P., praying the executing Court to arrest the J.Dr., and detain him in civil prison for wilful disobedience of the decree of permanent injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A and Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. In addition, they also sought a direction to Station House Officer, Mills Colony, to direct to ensure due obedience to• the decree of injunction by direct action and for costs. In Goli Kota Reddy (1 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court considered the question whether the civil Court can direct the police to ensure due obedience to the decree of the civil Court. In Goli Kota Reddy (1 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court considered the question whether the civil Court can direct the police to ensure due obedience to the decree of the civil Court. Making a reference to Order XXI Rule 32 and the decisions of this Court in Gordhanlalji (2 supra), Padamsen v. State of Utter Pradesh (21) AIR 1961 SC 218 , Rayapati Audemma (10 supra), Satymzarayana Tiwari (11 supra), Ghan Shyam Das Gupta (13 supra), G. Malakondaiah v. Sridhar Reddy (22) 1994 (1) APLJ 30 (SN) and R. Gopala Rao v. B. Prakasa Rao (23) 1996 (3) ALT 27 , this Court took the view that, "Order XXI of CPC lays down an elaborate system of implementation of decrees. Order XXI not only gives rights to decree holders alone but rights are available to Judgment Debtors and third parties as well. There are various defences which can be taken for resisting execution of a decree by judgment debtor and if by way of a short cut, without deciding the execution petition, police is asked to implement the decree, the judgment debtor would certainly lose the rights of resisting the decree on the basis of defences available to such judgment I debtor under Article 21". 6. As already observed, this Court has considered the question in detail with reference to interlocutory injunctions. We have already held that if an ad interim injunction is violated, and a complaint is made to that effect, the civil Court is not vested with any power to introduce police to ensure/due implementation of its orders. In such case, the person who obtained injunction has to file execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 and may also file an application for contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. When a final decree is passed, the said decree is executable under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. Civil Court cannot exercise its power under Section 151 read with Section 94(e) of CPC and direct police to ensure due obedience by the Judgment Debtor. That method would certainly be not only ultra vires but unconstitutional. Indeed, under Order XXI Rule 32 as well as under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, the arrest of the Judgment Debtor or violator is one of the modes of ensuring due respect to the decrees. That method would certainly be not only ultra vires but unconstitutional. Indeed, under Order XXI Rule 32 as well as under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, the arrest of the Judgment Debtor or violator is one of the modes of ensuring due respect to the decrees. If the Court feels that there has been wilful disobedience of the decree or breach of the decree by some positive act by the Judgment Debtor, the civil Court may order arrest or detention in civil prison of the violator or direct attachment of property or both. Pending such orders in execution petition, the trial Court cannot pass orders directing the police to intervene. Indeed, even if the case is proved that the Judgment Debtor has violated the decree of perpetual injunction, the civil Court can even direct restitution to meet ends of justice. 7. It is well settled that the inherent power of the civil Court recognized by Section 151 of CPC would not be available when the Code has specifically provided necessary procedure and modalities to do a particular thing (See Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal (24) AIR 1962 SC 527 ). Part II of CPC contains Sections 36 to 74 dealing with execution of decrees and Order XXI of CPC contains elaborate procedure for execution of decrees passed by civil Court. The rights of the decree holder, limitations in the exercise of such rights, the rights of the judgment debtors, the rights of the third parties are taken care of by these provisions. Section 38 of CPC mandates that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Section 36 is to the effect that the decrees shall be executed in the manner provided for under CPC. As already noticed, Order XXI Rule 32 is the procedure which has to be resorted to for executing the decree for injunction. When the law requires that such a decree can be executed by attachment of the property of the judgment debtor or by detention in civil prison or both, there cannot be a third method of directing police to ensure obedience for decree of perpetual injunction. When the law requires that such a decree can be executed by attachment of the property of the judgment debtor or by detention in civil prison or both, there cannot be a third method of directing police to ensure obedience for decree of perpetual injunction. It will be altogether different matter to direct the police to take the judgment debtor into custody for violation of decree of perpetual injunction and direct the authorities of civil prison to detain the judgment debtor in the prison. The power of arrest and detention may not include the power to direct the police to ensure due obedience of the decree of perpetual injunction. In civil judicial process including execution of decrees, the police have no role except to the extent CPC assigns them a limited role of arrest and detention in civil prison as directed by civil Court. 8. The decisions relied on by the petitioners in Vinedale Distilleries Limited (14 supra), Satyanarayana Tiwari (11 supra), P.Shanker Rao (3 supra) and J.Jagannath Reddy (17 supra) were rendered in the context of allegations of disobedience of temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In Sangu Brahmam (6 supra), the facts were different. In the said case, petitioners therein obtained decree for perpetual injunction from the Court of Senior Civil Judge on 29.06.1988. The defendants were unsuccessful in appeals as well as second appeals. In the meanwhile, in the related proceedings, the grant of patta to the petitioners was remanded to Settlement Officer for disposat which was pending. Though the possession was found to be with the petitioners, opposite parties started interfering with the possession. Therefore, they approached the Station House Officer of the local police station to protect their possession, in vain. Therefore, they filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the police for extending necessary help to petitioners therein. The learned single Judge relying on Calcutta Gas Company (9 supra), Audemma (10 supra) and Satyanarayana Tiwari (11 supra), allowed the writ petition directing the police to extend necessary help to protect their possession over the land. This Court observed that, it is the obligation of the police to ensure compliance with the Order under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. The relevant observations are as follows. This Court observed that, it is the obligation of the police to ensure compliance with the Order under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. The relevant observations are as follows. It is true that if there is any violation of the decree granted in a suit for perpetual injunction, the aggrieved party can file an E.P. under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. However, it cannot be said that execution is the only remedy in such an event. Once a Court of competent civil jurisdiction adjudicates upon the rights of the parties, the enforcing agencies of the State, be it from the Department of Revenue or Home, are under obligation to respect the same and ensure that the rights so declared are not flouted by others, particularly the parties to it. A Division Bench of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari (11 supra) dealt with an identical issue, but in relation to an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. As in this case, there too it was contended that violation of an order of temporary injunction can be dealt with, in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 39 CPC. After referring to the judgment of this Court in R. Audemma (10 supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Prop) Limited (9 supra), the Division Bench held as under; "The power which a Civil Court has under Section .151 CPC., the High Court has in much larger measure under Article 226 of the Constitution, We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that this Court has ample jurisdiction, to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the State to enforce the orders of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High Court in a civil revision petition and maintain the rule of law. The police authorities are therefore bound to give all assistance to the appellant to enforce and see that the orders of this Court as confirmed in CRP No. 3258/81 are implemented and any enquiry or report of any other authority, revenue or police cannot be put as an excuse for not rendering the required help to the appellant to maintain his possession." If this is the obligation of the police to ensure compliance with an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC., the duty to see that the decrees granted by the Courts at the disposal of the suits is much more. In R.Veeraiah v. Commissioner of Police, 1982 (1) APL J (HC) Short Notes 42, this Court held that wherever a judgment-debtor in a decree for perpetual injunction violates it, it shall be open to the decree holder to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. As already noticed, the decisions rendered by this Court referred to above, were delivered in the context of interlocutory injunction orders and not final decree for injunction orders. 10. In Coli Kota Reddy (1 supra), the civil Court passed a decree for 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 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 implement the decree when an application for execution of the decree is still pending before the Court. 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 implement the decree when an application for execution of the decree is still pending before the Court. No final orders have been passed in the execution petition by the executing Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is a decree for injunction, therefore, it could have not been executed by the Court except by directing the police to execute the decree. This contention is not correct in view of Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC. In case of disobedience of a decree of injunction, the executing Court• has the power to remand the person disobeying such a decree to civil prison. The Court can also attach the property. 11. We have carefully perused all the decisions which have been brought to the notice of this Court and two judgments of two learned single Judges, which deal with the question in the context of perpetual decree for injunction. We are inclined to accept the view and reasoning in Coli Kota Reddy (1 supra). We accordingly hold that when execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC 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, in exercise of powers under Section 151 of CPC, the executing Court cannot direct the police to ensure obedience to the decree. After the decree has 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 and attachment of property. 12. A question crops up as to the power of the Court to ensure status quo during pendency of petition filed for executing decree for perpetual injunction. Section 140(1) (sic. 141) of CPC provides that the procedure in the Code in regard to suit shall be followed in execution petitions. Therefore, in appropriate cases, the executing Court can even pass interim orders for attachment or orders prohibiting the judgment debtor from going near the land or from taking any steps in relation to subject matter of the execution petition. 141) of CPC provides that the procedure in the Code in regard to suit shall be followed in execution petitions. Therefore, in appropriate cases, the executing Court can even pass interim orders for attachment or orders prohibiting the judgment debtor from going near the land or from taking any steps in relation to subject matter of the execution petition. If a decree holder approaches the police alleging that in spite of decree for perpetual injunction, judgment debtors are interfering and causing legal injury to the decree holders, if it is immovable property, the police can register an offence for trespass or attempted trespass and investigate the matter. Such course of action would be altogether different from the remedy of execution available to decree holder. However, as already held supra, an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC for executing a decree for perpetual injunction cannot be disposed of by directing the police to ensure obedience to the decree. 13. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance given by learned amicus curiae Ms. A.Jayanthi. 14. We accordingly answer the reference agreeing with the view expressed in Coli Kota Reddy (1 supra). As this question alone is referred to the Bench, we direct the Registry to post the civil revision petition before learned single Judge after obtaining orders from the Honble the Chief Justice. 15. Reference is accordingly answered as above.