ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. The present Revision is filed aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 11.06.2015 in I.A.No.145/2015 in O.S.No.578/2012 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff and the suit for permanent injunction was filed against the Respondent. The said suit was decreed on 22.04.2014 granting permanent injunction in favour of the Petitioner restraining the Respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. It is the plea of the Petitioner that in spite of the orders of permanent injunction, Respondent forcibly dispossessed the Petitioner from the suit schedule property on 05.04.2014 in violation of the orders of the Court and hence sought for restoration of possession of the suit schedule property. 3. In the counter filed by the Respondent, it was pleaded that the Petitioner was never dispossessed from the suit schedule property and that the Respondent is residing in his property, which is the second plot to the suit schedule property. It was also pleaded that there is one house existing in the name of one Smt.Godavarti Jalaja i.e. the mother of Respondent and her possession was recognized by the revenue authorities, who had issued possession certificate and granted Indiramma Housing Scheme in one of the houses of the Petitioner and the Respondent. 4. It was further pleaded that the Petitioner and Respondent are residing in their respective houses and there was no requirement to occupy or interfere or dispossess the Petitioner. It was further pleaded that there is no objection to measure the suit schedule property with the assistance of Advocate Commissioner. It was further pleaded that the Petitioner was seeking to occupy the property of the mother of the Respondent i.e., Godavarthi Jalaja, which is abutting the suit schedule property. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the respective counsels opined that the Petitioner did not explain as to what steps shall be taken to establish the dispossession and that in the normal circumstances, the issue would have been referred to the concerned police, prime steps would have been taken to restore her possession on 05.12.2014 and the trial Court eventually dismissed the said application. 5. Heard Sri D.Butchi Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent. 6. 5. Heard Sri D.Butchi Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent. 6. The application was filed under section 144 of CPC to restore possession and the said provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same is applicable with regard to dispossessions pending suit or when the decree is varied or reversed in appeal. The other plea of the Petitioner was that the trial Court should have exercised its inherent powers under section 151 of CPC and restore possession to the Petitioner cannot be sustained as post decree dispossessions in a decree for permanent Injunction have to be redressed in an enquiry under Order 21, Rule 32 of CPC. This is all the more required in the facts of this case as the Respondent pleads that there is no dispossession and violation of decree and specifically pleads for survey of suit schedule property. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the eventual decision of the trial Court. However, as there is no time limit for an application under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC since the violation alleged is a continuing one, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC before the trial Court. 8. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.