THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4561 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.188 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala against the petitioners (defendants 1 and 6) and respondents 2 to 5 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. They have also filed I.A.No.800 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The I.A. was allowed on 08.07.2007. C.M.A.No.10 of 2008 filed by the petitioners herein against the order of temporary injunction was dismissed on 26.07.2010 by the appellate Court and thereby, the order of temporary injunction became final. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1457 of 2010 under Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the Station House Officer, Vetapalem P.S., to grant police aid. He pleaded that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 have come to the suit schedule property with their followers, interfered with the work and administered threats on 23.08.2010. The petitioners opposed the application, stating that they never interfered with the possession of the 1st respondent. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 25.07.2011. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a matter of record that I.A.No.800 of 2008 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the respondents was allowed and that the appeal filed against it was dismissed. Once the order of temporary injunction is operating, the respondents therein are precluded and prevented from interfering with the possession of the petitioners therein over the suit schedule property. Alleging that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 are interfering with the possession over the suit schedule property, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1457 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C. for police aid. It may be true that filing of an application under Rule 2A of Order 39 C.P.C. is another option open to the petitioner in an application for temporary injunction, in case the order of temporary injunction is violated. It is equally open to him to file an application for police aid. Though the consequences that ensue in the two categories of applications are different, the ultimate aim is to ensure that the order of temporary injunction is honored and respected. The petitioners contend that they never violated the order of temporary injunction. If that be so, there would not be any occasion for the police to take any steps against them. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is however directed that the police shall proceed against the petitioners, if only they violate the order of temporary injunction granted in I.A.No.800 of 2008 in any manner, and not otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4561 of 2011 Date: 24.10.2011 JSU