ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam dated 15-4-2002 in LA. No. 1113 of 2001 in I.A. No. 1071 of 2001 in O.S. No. 382 of 2001 according police protection to the respondent-plaintiff to safeguard his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 382 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In that suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed I.A. No. 264 of 2001 and obtained interim injunction against the petitioners-defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-defendants preferred C.M.A. No. 21 of 2002 before the District Judge, Khammam. which is pending. Pending the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1113 of 2001 seeking police protection alleging that the petitioners-defendants are interfering with his possession even though there is an order of interim injunction against the petitioners-defendants. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge on 15-4-2002, ordered police protection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-defendants preferred this revision.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if any party disobeys the injunction order, the respondent-plaintiff who obtained the interim injunction can invoke the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code’) instead of resorting to police protection. He further submits that under the guise of police protection, the respondent-plaintiff is threatening the petitioners herein with dire consequences.
4. It is true that Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code deals with consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction. But, it does not mean that the Court below is not competent to provide police protection in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code. When once an injunction order is not carried out it is always open for the parties to seek police protection to see that the said order is properly implemented. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge.
5. It is to he noted that a person who obtained injunction order in his favour normally would not resort to file a petition seeking police protection unless there is a threat by the opposite party. As the respondent-plaintiff is not in a position to execute the injunction order, he filed the petition and obtained police protection to restrain the illegal activities of the petitioners-defendants. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners-defendants that there is a threat at the hands of the respondent-plaintiff cannot be accepted.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. However, if really the respondent-plaintiff is taking undue advantage of the order of police protection, it is always open for the petitioners-defendants to bring the same to the knowledge of the Principal Junior Civil Judge. Khammam, who granted the said order, and get the same vacated, if he so desires.