IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2405 of 2009 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise order dated 02.2.2009 in I.A.No.610 of 2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi. Between: 1 Kolukuluri Ramulu S/o Mukkaiah R/o Pathuru H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 2 Kolukuluri Sujatha W/o Ramulu R/o Pathuru H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 3 Kolukuluri Rakesh S/o Ramulu R/o Pathuru H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 4 Kolukuluri Bhogiraju S/o Mukkaiah R/o Pathuru H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Kolukuluri Balshowry S/o Mukkaiah R/o Pathuru, H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 2 Kantkipati Yesuratnam S/o Siddaiah R/o Pathuru, H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 3 Yandapalli Rafel S/o Issac R/o Pathuru, H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District 4 Yamandra Yesu S/o Ananda Rao R/o Pathuru, H.o K.Kota Chintalapudi, W.G.District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2405 of 2009 ORDER: First respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi. Suit was filed for injunction. Along with suit, plaintiff also filed I.A.No.153 of 2008 for ad interim injunction. The same was granted on 25.4.2008. Five months thereafter, plaintiff filed I.A. No.610 of 2008 praying trial Court to direct Station House Officer (SHO), P.S. Chinthalapudi, to give police aid in enforcing order of injunction. The trial Court on 02.2.2009 directed SHO to give protection to plaintiff and see that defendant do not violate ad interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that unless and until there is material before this Court to show that there is an attempt by defendants to flout orders of injunction, extraordinary discretion in directing police to give aid cannot be exercised. This Court perused affidavit filed by petitioners denying allegations made by plaintiff. As rightly observed by learned trial Judge, when an order of injunction is issued, defendants are bound to obey the same and if they seek any modification of orders, they have to approach the Court granting injunction. They cannot flout order of injunction and if they do so, it would attract contempt proceedings. In this case, in his affidavit, first respondent clearly alleged that when there was an attempt by defendants with the support of local politicians not to allow plaintiff to enjoy property, he approached police and on their advice, he filed I.A.No.610 of 2008 for police protection. Defendants, in their counter, except making vague allegation that in the guise of order of injunction, first respondent/plaintiff is trying to cut the jam oil trees, no defence of any substance was raised, in opposing application. In that view of the matter, the order does not suffer any error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 04, 2009 YS