ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two civil revision petitions are filed by the judgment-debtors in E.P. No. 136 of 2006 in O.S. No. 497 of 1994, on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was filed by the respondent, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20-9-1999. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S. No. 2866 of 1999 before this Court. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed on 18-11-2005. L.P.A. No. 1 of 2006 filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 2866 of 1999 was dismissed on 19-6-2006. The petitioners claim to have preferred an S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. The respondent filed the E.P. for execution of the decree. The petitioners filed an application, before the executing Court, for correction of the Door Number of the suit schedule property from '44-1-32' to '44-1-31/A'. They pleaded that there is voluminous record and material, to disclose that the property, in respect of which the relief is claimed, is the one in D. No. 44-1-31/A and not the one in D. No. 44-1-32. The trial Court rejected the E.A., through the order, dated 19-10-2006, holding that it is impressible to undertake correction of the decree. C.R.P. No. 5539 of 2006 is filed against the said order.
3. Stating that the petitioners are offering resistance, to the execution of the decree, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, the respondent filed E.A. No. 325 of 2006 before the executing Court, with a prayer to grant police aid. The application was resisted by the petitioners and the executing Court allowed the E.A., through the order, dated 19-10-2006. C.R.P. No. 5360 of 2006 arises out of the said order.
4. Sri G. Dharma Rao, earned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the respondent furnished the Door Number of the suit schedule property as '44-1-32', the description as well as the location on the ground, fit into the one with Door No. 44-1-31/A. According to the learned Counsel, the executing Court ought to have entertained the application and there does not exist any bar, for carrying out the necessary corrections, without affecting the purport of the decree. Earned Counsel further contends that grant of police protection is not part of the procedure under Order 21 C.P.C., and that the order passed by the executing Court in E.A. No. 325 of 2006 is contrary to the prescribed procedure.
5. Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, the earned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is not at all open for any executing Court to amend, alter or correct the decree. He submits that the petitioners raised similar objection, during the course of the trial, and the same was repelled by this Court, while allowing the appeal, and that even if it was not dealt with, the principle of constructive res judicata operates against the petitioners. The earned Counsel further contends that it is competent for the executing Court, to order police protection and assistance, to implement and execute the decree.
6. One of the revisions arises out of an order, rejecting the application for correction of the decree, with reference to the description of the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the respondent claimed the relief in respect of the property in D. No. 44-1-32. The suit was decreed at the stage of appeal. There could have been some justification for the petitioners, to file an application for correction or to oppose the E.P., had the execution been sought in respect of the premises, other than the one mentioned in the suit schedule. It is not in dispute that the E.P. is filed in respect of the same premises, that is shown in the suit schedule. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the rejection of the application of the petitioner, for correction of the decree.
7. It is no doubt true that Order 21 C.P.C. does not contain any provision, for granting police protection. However, the executing Court is conferred with the power, to order such measures, as are needed, to ensure that the decree is executed. Specific power is conferred to remove obstructions, even if offered by third parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the executing Court lacked competence, in ordering police protection. Having suffered a decree, the petitioners cannot offer resistance for execution of the decree.
8. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.