JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Defendants have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 29.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri. 2. Respondents filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. Vide order dated 29.9.2007, Annexure P/1, learned trial court allowed application of plaintiffs for temporary injunction and thereby restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except in due course of law. Thereafter plaintiffs moved application for providing police help for implementation of order dated 29.9.2007, Annexure P/1. The said application has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 12.11.2008, Annexure P/2 granting police help for implementation of order Annexure P/1. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that order Annexure P/1 whereby temporary injunction was granted to the plaintiffs cannot be challenged in the instant revision petition because the same was appealable and no appeal was preferred against the same and said order has, therefore, attained finality. Accordingly, revision petition qua order Annexure P/1 is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that impugned order Annexure P/2 granting police help to the plaintiffs is illegal because the plaintiffs could proceed against the defendants either under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) or under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and no police help could be provided on the application of the plaintiffs. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the court has power and jurisdiction to grant police help for implementing order of temporary injunction. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus Jaggar Singh, 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 218 (P&H) and two judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in cases of P. Shanker Rao versus Smt. B. Susheela, 2000(2) Civil Court Cases 223 (A.P.) and Sk. Yousuf & Ors. Versus Shaik Madhar Saheb, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 392 (A.P.). The ratio of all these three judgments is that court can grant police help for implementation of order of temporary injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Yousuf & Ors. Versus Shaik Madhar Saheb, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 392 (A.P.). The ratio of all these three judgments is that court can grant police help for implementation of order of temporary injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 8. Order Annexure P/1 granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs has attained finality. Consequently, defendants have no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have a right to get the said order enforced or implemented and if need be, with the police help. There is nothing wrong or illegal in impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court granting police help for implementation of order Annexure P/1. This conclusion is supported by three judgments mentioned hereinabove including a judgment of this Court. No judgment to the contrary has been cited. 9. Recourse to Order 21 Rule 32 CPC cannot be taken for implementation of order of temporary injunction because said provision relates to execution of a decree. Recourse to Order 39 Rule 2A CPC can be taken in the case of disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. However, court is not helpless and cannot be a mute spectator if the order of temporary injunction is sought to be breached. Order 39 Rule 2A can be resorted to in case of disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. However, if disobedience of the order of temporary injunction is to be prevented before the disobedience is committed, then under section 151 CPC, the court has ample power even to grant police help for implementing order of temporary injunction. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ------------