( 1 ) THESE three revisions can be disposed of by a common order since the issue arises for j consideration in the three revision petitions is j one and the same. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS, who are the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 217 of 1994, filed I. A. No. 1121 of 1994 for granting temporary mandatory injunction. In the said I. A. , on 21-4-1994, the court below granted temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the cross-bunds and the feeding channel formed by them to take the bore-well water from the land of the third respondent to the lands of respondents 3 and 8 to 10 and not to cause any obstruction for free passage of the petitioners, their men and cattle through the suit schedule puntha. The main suit was also decreed on 21-4-1999 directing the respondents to remove all the encroachments and obstructions in the Puntha shown as "abcdefgh" in the plaint plan. ( 3 ) PENDING the suit, I. A. No. 2463 of 1994 was filed in I. A. No. 1121 of 1994 under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC to punish respondents 3 and 8 to 10 for violation of the injunction order granted by the Court in I. A. No. 1121 of 1994. ( 4 ) COMPLAINING disobedience to the injunction granted in I. A. No. 1121/94, petitioners filed I. A. No. 3255 of 1996 for the very same relief referred to above. Similarly another I. A. No. 943 of 1998 was also filed complaining the violation of the injunction order passed in I. A. No. 1121 of 1994. The said I. A. s were disposed of holding that respondents. 3 and 8 to 10 violated the injunction order and therefore, attached the landed properties of respondents 3 and 8 to 10 for an extent of Ac. 1. 51 cents in R. S. No. 10/1 E and an extent of Ac. 4-00 in R. S. No. 11/2 of Haveli Lingapalem village respectively as per orders dated 21-4-1999. ( 5 ) IN order to execute the orders passed by the Court below in the above I. As, petitioners filed E. P. Nos. 392,393 and 394 of 2000 in I. A. Nos. 2463 of 1994, 3255 of 1996 and 943 of 1998 respectively, to auction the attached land and also to award compensation amount from out of the sale proceeds. 392,393 and 394 of 2000 in I. A. Nos. 2463 of 1994, 3255 of 1996 and 943 of 1998 respectively, to auction the attached land and also to award compensation amount from out of the sale proceeds. Though all the three E. Ps were taken up together for hearing and evidence, they were dismissed by passing separate orders, against which, the petitioners preferred present civil revision petitions before this Court. CRP (SR) No. 106050 of 2003 was filed with an application to condone the delay, which is, now, condoned. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that when the first petitioner/decree holder. et in evidence, he stated that during the pendency of the second petition filed by him namely, I. A. No. 3255 of 1996, which is the subject matter of CRP. No. 512 of 2005 again the 3rd J. Dr fitted cement pipes across the puntha and supplied watertoj. Drs. 4 and 8 to 11. He also stated that for violation of the injunction order passed by the Court below, three I. As were filed and they were allowed by ordering the attachment of the properties of J. Drs 3 and 8 to 10. He further stated that the Commissioner, who visited to note down the obstructions, got removed the crossbunds, filled up the channel and filed a report. Since the obstruction caused by the respondents is in violation of the injunction order the lower Court ought to have allowed the EPs for sale of the attached property and could have paid the compensation after due determination, from the said sale proceeds. Therefore, dismissal of E. Ps by the lower court is erroneous as the petitioners were left without any remedy. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents filed counter stating that in pursuance of the decree passed by the Court below, they have complied with the directions and that without there being any recorded proof to show that they did not remove the obstructions in the puntha, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation in execution of the decree for sale of the attached property. In view of the said facts, the lower court rightly dismissed the E. Ps filed by the petitioners, and therefore, the impugned orders do not require any interference of this court. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, after granting temporary mandatory injunction in I. A. No. 1121 of 1994, petitioners filed three I. As as referred to above complaining that the respondents violated the injunction order passed by the lower Court. The lower Court holding that the respondents violated the injunction orders passed by it, disposed of the said I. As ordering for attachment of the properties. In view of the same, when the EPs were filed by the petitioners in execution of the orders passed in the said I. As for sale of the attached properties, the lower Court had gone into the facts and circumstances of the case and held that there is no obstruction caused by the respondents within a period of one year from the date of attachment of the properties of the j. Drs, and that in the absence of any other evidence shown by the petitioners/plaintiffs that violation of the injunction orders by the respondents, is continued even after attachment of their properties, and that in view of the admission of the petitioners 1 and 6 during their cross-examination that the advocate Commissioner got removed the obstruction and that in the absence of any other evidence adduced by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in establishing that the respondents again violated the injunction order even after the obstructions were removed by the advocate-Commissioner. In view of the same, the lower Court dismissed the said E. Ps. holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed. In view of the same, the lower Court dismissed the said E. Ps. holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed. ( 10 ) WHETHER the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed or not, will depend upon the true interpretation of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A cpc, which reads as under:"consequence of Disobedience or breach of Injunction: (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which, the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. " ( 11 ) THE express language of Rule 2-A of order XXXIX CPC, if read in proper context, it is clear that it is only in respect of injunction, which is granted either under Rule 1 or rule 2, and if breach thereof is committed, then consequence would follow as mentioned in Rule 2-A. That no attachment made under rule 2-A shall remain in force for more than one year at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 2-A. ( 12 ) THE evidence of petitioners 1 and 6 clearly discloses that obstruction was caused after the Court granted the injunction and the same was continued during the pendency of the second petition filed by them. It is also admitted that E. Ps were filed to sell away the attached properties for awarding compensation since the J. Drs caused obstruction in transporting paddy, sugarcane, coconut, maize and plantains etc. It is no where stated by the petitioners 1 and 6 that the obstruction was caused after the attachment is effected pursuant to the disposal of I. A. Nos. 2463/94, 3255/96 and 943/98 whereas the 3rd respondent/j. Dr, in his cross-examination, categorically denied that they have violated the injunction orders. He admitted that the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by the Court, removed the cross bunds and closed the feeding channel in the puntha. He also denied that he has started supplying water after erecting the cross bunds in the puntha. He further denied the suggestion that there are directions of the mandal Revenue Officer to remove the cross bunds and that he has not heeded the directions of the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it was categorically stated that he has already removed the obstructions in the puntha in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court and accordingly, complied with the directions. In spite of the said plea taken by the respondent, there is no evidence worth showing that even after passing the decree or orders in the I. A. s, the respondents caused obstruction in the puntha by erecting cross-bunds forming of feeding channels and supplying water from the bore- well to the other respondents. The lower court rightly observed that except the evidence of P. W. 1, there is no other evidence showing that violation of the injunction order by the respondents was continued even after attachment of the properties for execution of the decree by sale of the attached properties. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, there is no illegality committed by the lower Court in coming to the said conclusion, which requires interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 14 ) THE Civil Revision Petitions fail and accordingly dismissed.