JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition has been filed aggrieved by return of un-numbered IA No.---/2024 (CFR No.2029/2024) in IA No.177/2024 in OS No.62/2024 dated 05.08.2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Madikasira, Sri Sathya Sai District. 2. The petitioner herein filed OS No.62/2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madikasira for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, representatives and all persons claiming through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit. In the said suit, IA No.177/2024 was filed for grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents, their men, agents, representatives, associates and all persons claiming through them from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of well water through the channel existing in the schedule property, till disposal of the suit. By an order dated 22.03.2024, learned Civil Judge granted ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents, supporters from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property until 06.04.2024. Thereafter the said interim order has been extended from time to time. Despite the fact that an injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioner herein, the respondents were interfering with the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner. In connection with that, the petitioner filed I.A.---/2024 (CFR No.2029/2024) to direct the Station House Officer, Madakasira to provide protection to the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the schedule property. The Court below returned the petition stating as to how the petition is maintainable without passing the final order. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in Morusu Sreeramulu Reddy v. Kareppagari Eswaraiah, 2023 (1) ALT 511 (AP), has categorically held thus : (Paragraph Nos.15, 21 and 27) "Even in the judgment relied on by the Trial Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and others v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others, 3, the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus : (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." "Thus, the position of law emerges from the principles laid down supra, powers conferred by virtue of Section 151 of CPC to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. Section 151 does not confer any powers, but only indicates that there is a power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The inherent power has not been conferred on the Court, it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before." "In view of expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, since the Trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it, this Court exercising powers vested with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inclined to set aside the order passed by Trial Court." 4. It is made clear in the above referred judgment that even after a person obtaining ad-interim injunction, when there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of injunction, he is entitled for police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty rights of the opposite party. 5. When the aforesaid principle is clear to the said extent and the same is unambiguous, this Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madakasira to pass appropriate orders basing on the law laid down in Morusu Sreeramulu Reddy v. Kareppagari Eswaraiah (supra), within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 7. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.