Or. 21, rule 32 c.p.c. = Bare injunction suit decree - can be executed for violation of injunction order under Or .21, rule 32 but not for removing any hurdles paid in the rastha passage by the JDr - no court can depute amina or any body to remove the hurdles = MALLEMPATI SITALAKSHMI VS NALLAPTI RAJA JAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2772&year=2013

Or. 21, rule 32 c.p.c. = Bare injunction suit decree - can be executed for violation of  injunction order under Or .21, rule 32 but not for removing any hurdles paid in the rastha passage by the JDr - no court can depute amina or any body to remove the hurdles =

It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree passed therein became final.  The relief is in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction for the passage, mentioned in the plaint plan.  Assuming that the respondents have created any hurdle in the passage, the only course open to the petitioner is to pray for execution as provided for under Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C.  That provision in so far as it pertains to the decrees of perpetual injunction, enables the Executing Court to confine the judgment debtors in civil prison.  Beyond that, the Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to take any further steps. 

The relief claimed by the petitioner in the E.P. is to depute the Amin of the Court or any other person for removal of the hurdles.  Such a relief is totally outside the scope of execution of the decree in a suit for injunction simplicitor.  The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by it.

CRP 2772 / 2013

CRPSR 20652 / 2012

PETITIONER RESPONDENT MALLEMPATI SITALAKSHMI   VS NALLAPTI RAJA JAYALAKSHMI & ANOTHER PET.ADV. : SRIHARI RESP.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYAM SUBJECT: C.P.C. DISTRICT:  GUNTUR

  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition No.2772 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner filed O.S.No.263 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property.  The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18.09.2008.  The appeal filed against the decree is said to have dismissed.  After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.358 of 2008 under Order XXI C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint the Court Amin or to depute any other person for removal of hurdles, which were installed by the respondents in the plaint schedule property.  The so-called hurdles were also given markings.  The respondents opposed the E.P. by filing a counter.  They pleaded that the E.P. in the present form is not maintainable in law.  The Executing Court dismissed the E.P., through order, dated 22.02.2012.  Hence, this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree passed therein became final.  The relief is in the form of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction for the passage, mentioned in the plaint plan.  Assuming that the respondents have created any hurdle in the passage, the only course open to the petitioner is to pray for execution as provided for under Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C.  That provision in so far as it pertains to the decrees of perpetual injunction, enables the Executing Court to confine the judgment debtors in civil prison.  Beyond that, the Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to take any further steps. 

The relief claimed by the petitioner in the E.P. is to depute the Amin of the Court or any other person for removal of the hurdles.  Such a relief is totally outside the scope of execution of the decree in a suit for injunction simplicitor.  The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by it.

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.  It is, however, left open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law.  There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall also stand disposed of.

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.   

Dated:11.10.2013

GJ

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2772 of 2013

Date:11.10.2013

GJ