This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.21.08.2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2013 in OS.No.197 of 2011 of the Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

2. The petitioners are defendants in the above suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

3. He also filed I.A.No.772 of 2011 in the suit seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. On 21-12-2011, an ad-interim injunction was granted in his favour. Subsequently, the defendants chose to remain exparte. Therefore, the temporary injunction order granted in I.A.No.772 of 2011 was made absolute on 20-09-2012.

4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.129 of 2013 to direct the S.H.O., P.S. Atmakur to provide protection for implementation of the injunction order granted by the Court. He alleged that defendants are causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property even after the temporary injunction orders were made absolute on 20-09-2012 in I.A.No.772 of 2011 and that they are more in number, are strong and wealthy people while he is only one person, and it would not be possible for him to resist the illegal and unauthorised acts of the defendants.

5. The 1st defendant filed a counter for himself and other defendants opposing this plea and contended that the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff was not made absolute; that the defendants have filed counter on 04-07-2013 stating that the plaintiff was never in possession of the plaint schedule property and he has no right over it; and therefore, there is no question of the defendants interfering or committing illegal acts. He also contended that under the guise of the ex parte temporary injunction order, the plaintiff is trying to encroach into the plaint schedule property. He also contended that the plaintiff has not mentioned the date, time and nature of interference or the loss sustained by him and therefore, the I.A.No.129 of 2013 be dismissed.

6. By order dt.21-08-2013, the Court below allowed I.A.No.129 of 2013. It held that the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in I.A.No.772 of 2011 on 21-12-2011 was made absolute on 20-09-2012; that the defendants had filed written statements in the suit but they have not filed any counter in I.A.No.129 of 2013; after granting several adjournments and also imposing costs, they were set exparte and the temporary injunction order was made absolute. It held that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property cannot be accepted as the defendants did not file any counter in the I.A.No.772 of 2011 taking the said plea, that defendants cannot try to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as the order dt.20-09-2012 in I.A.No.771 of 2011 is still in existence; that it cannot just remain on paper; as the defendants are 12 in number, they are numerically stronger than the sole plaintiff; and therefore, I.A.No.129 of 2013 is allowed and the S.H.O. of P.S. Atmakur (S) shall provide necessary police aid to the plaintiff.

7. Challenging the said order, this Revision is filed.

8. Heard Sri P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous; since there is an allegation made by plaintiff that defendants are causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, plaintiff can only file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. to punish the defendants for violating the temporary injunction order passed by the Court and they cannot se