THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.1042 of 2011 Date of Order: 25-03-2011 Between: 1. Vanama Narasimha Rao and another ..Petitioners and 1. Jagani Ranjit Kumar and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.1042 of 2011 Oral order: Petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru in allowing I.A.No.122 of 2011 in I.A.No.105 of 2011 in O.S.No.37 of 2011, dated 10-03-2011. The 1st respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for mandatory injunction in which he obtained a direction in I.A.No.105 of 2011 by way of temporary injunction directing the petitioners herein (D1 and D2) to restore the power supply to the plaint schedule shop by getting the power supply for the service numbers from APSPDCL—2nd respondent herein till disposal of the suit. In spite of service of order, the electricity disconnected to the plaint schedule shop has not been restored. Hence, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the above I.A. Petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 contested the same stating that unless the 2nd respondent herein (3rd respondent in IA) is not made a party to the suit no order directing him to restore the power supply can be passed and seeking a direction against the 3rd respondent who is impleaded in IA is not maintainable. The lower court by the impugned order allowed the I.A. Hence, the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the very same contention that unless the 3rd respondent—APSPDCL is impleaded to the suit no direction can be issued for restoration of power supply. This Court do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the counsel, because the suit is filed for mandatory injunction praying to restore the power supply and obtained temporary injunction, which includes not only the petitioners—defendants 1 and 2 but also the persons who are seeking under them has to restore the power supply. Admittedly, the service connection was obtained by the petitioners (defendants 1 and 2) from the 2nd respondent herein; therefore, they have to restore the power supply, which is in their name. As the petitioners have not taken any steps to restore the power supply, the lower Court rightly ordered the 3rd respondent to restore the power supply to the plaint schedule shop standing in the name of the petitioners in aid of implementing its earlier order, which do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 25-03-2010 Murthy