“under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC two conditions must be established. One is that the party had an opportunity to obey the decree and the other is that the party had willfully failed to obey it.” It was also held that “unless these two conditions are satisfied, the Court cannot order detention in civil prison.” It was further held that “even if both the conditions are satisfied, still it is discretion of the Court to order attachment or detention in civil prison. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC are penal in nature.”

whether the property in question is included in the decree or relating to identity would fall under Section 47 CPC. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of filing an application under Section 47 CPC by the judgement debtors/respondents would not amount to willful disobedience of the decree.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2489 OF 2016

Between:

1. T.C. RAJAN S/o. T.Anajaiah Goudu

Occ: Cultivation,

R/o. Royalpata Village and Post, Peddapanjani Mandal,

Chittoor District.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER Rep. by the District

Collector, Chittoor.

2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapanjani Mandal,

Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): P V VIDYASAGAR

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP)

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:23400

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2489 of 2016

Between:

T.C.Rajan

… Petitioner/Decree-holder

 Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

the District Collector, Chittoor and one

(01) other.

...Respondents/Judgment-debtors

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.07.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

____________________________________

 JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 2 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2489 of 2016

% 18.07.2023

# Between:

T.C.Rajan

… Petitioner/Decree-holder

 Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

the District Collector, Chittoor and one

(01) other.

...Respondents/Judgment-debtors

! Counsel for the Revision

petitioner : Sri P.V.Vidyasagar

^ Counsel for the Respondent

Nos.1 and 2

: Sri Kota Subba Rao,

Government Pleader for Arbitration

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Evuru Venkata Subbayya vs. Srishti Veerayya and

others reported in AIR 1969 AP 92.

2. Arjuna Gounder vs. Govindaraju Reddiar reported in

(1990) 2 MLJ 411.

3. Shivamurthy vs. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart reported

in AIR 1987 Kant 26.

4. Mujeeb Ahmed Khan (JD-1) vs. Sadar Anjuman-E.

Islamia and another reported in (2002) 1 An WR 403.

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 3 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2489 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Heard Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner/decree-holder and learned Government Pleader for

Arbitration appearing for the respondents/judgment-debtors.

2. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated

18.02.2016 in O.E.P.No.33 of 2005 in O.S.No.323 of 1996 on the

file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur.

3. The revision-petitioner is the decree-holder. He filed the

execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for brevity „CPC‟) against the respondents/

District Collector, Chittoor and the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Peddapanjani Mandal of Chittoor District, who are judgmentdebtors, alleging that they have violated the decree of prohibitory

injunction issued by the First Appellate Court in Appeal Suit

No.27 of 2000, dated 30.08.2004.

4. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner would

submit that the Trial Court erroneously „Dismissed‟ the execution

petition though, the decree of the First Appellate Court was

„Confirmed‟ by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 4 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

Hyderabad, while dismissing the Second Appeal No.36 of 2005 on

14.02.2014, filed by the respondents.

5. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents would

submit that the learned Trial Court on facts categorically held

that the decree-holder did not place any affidavit or oral evidence

to prove the mode of violation of the decree by the judgmentdebtors and there is no proof as to who violated the decree and

therefore, refused to order the execution petition as requested by

the decree-holder and in that view of the matter, there are no

grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Execution

Court.

6. In the light of the above rival contentions of the revision

petitioner/decree-holder and the respondents/judgment-debtors,

the point that arises for consideration is: -

“Whether the Trial Court committed any material

irregularity in the Order, dated 18.02.2016 passed in

O.E.P.No.33 of 2005 in O.S.No.323 of 1996 on the

file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur?”

7. P O I N T: -

It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner/decreeholder filed O.S.No.323 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Punganur for „Permanent Injunction‟ against the

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 5 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

respondents/judgment-debtors/defendants and the said suit was

„Dismissed‟ by the Trial Court vide Judgment, dated 03.07.2000.

It is also an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner preferred

First Appeal vide A.S.No.27 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Punganur and it was „Allowed‟ vide Judgment and Decree,

dated 30.08.2004. It is also an admitted fact that the

respondents/judgment-debtors preferred Second Appeal vide

S.A.No.36 of 2005 on the file of High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the second appeal was

„Dismissed‟ as devoid of merit, holding that the plaintiff i.e., the

revision-petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of „Declaration‟

and „consequential Permanent Injunction‟ in respect of the plaint

schedule property.

8. The revision-petitioner filed the above execution petition

under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC seeking detention of the

respondents/judgment-debtors in civil prison alleging violation of

the decree of prohibitory injunction.

9. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Evuru Venkata Subbayya vs. Srishti Veerayya

and others1 considered the ambit of Order XXI, Rule 32 of CPC

with reference to application of Order XXI Rule 32 (1) and (5) of

1 AIR 1969 AP 92.

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 6 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

CPC and at para-No.5 held that “If a prohibitory injunction is

disobeyed, the decree-holder will have a right to execute it and

the word “injunction” in Order XXI Rule 32 (1) is covering

prohibitory injunction.”

10. Therefore, Order XXI Rule 32 (1) CPC would apply to a

decree for prohibitory injunction.

11. In this context, it is just and proper to refer „Order XXI

Rule 32 (1) of CPC‟, which is extracted hereunder:

Rule 32. Decree for specific performance for restitution

of conjugal rights, or for an injunction: -

(1) Where the party against whom a

decree for the specific performance of a contract, or

for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an

injunction, has been passed, has had an

opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully

failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the

case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by

the attachment of his property or, in the case of a

decree for the specific performance of a contract or

for an injunction by his detention in the civil

prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by

both.

12. Therefore, the requirement under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32

CPC is that the decree-holder shall prove that the judgmentdebtor having had an opportunity to obey the decree, willfully

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 7 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

failed to obey it. Further, the Court shall not pass any order of

detention in civil prison, until the Court gives a finding that

judgment-debtor having had an opportunity to obey the decree,

has willfully failed to obey it.

13. The High Court of Madras in Arjuna Gounder vs.

Govindaraju Reddiar2 held that “under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC

two conditions must be established. One is that the party had an

opportunity to obey the decree and the other is that the party had

willfully failed to obey it.” It was also held that “unless these two

conditions are satisfied, the Court cannot order detention in civil

prison.” It was further held that “even if both the conditions are

satisfied, still it is discretion of the Court to order attachment or

detention in civil prison. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC

are penal in nature.”

14. The High Court of Madras in the above judgment held that

“in fact, a proceeding under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is a

proceeding for punishment for contempt of Court and an extreme

penalty of attachment of properties as well as detention in civil

prison is provided for in the rule even in execution of a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights, specific performance, and

injunction.”

2 (1990) 2 MLJ 411.

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 8 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

15. Therefore, when the provisions are so severe against

judgment-debtor, it is the duty of the Court to consider the rule

strictly and the Court which passes order under the rule must

act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the rule.

16. The High Court of Karnataka in Shivamurthy vs.

Dannammadevi Cycle Mart3 held at para-No.7 as under:

“The Court cannot make an order for detention without

satisfying itself and recording a finding on the basis of

materials produced that the person had opportunity of

obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey and the

onus lies on the person seeking order of detention.”

17. The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Mujeeb Ahmed Khan (JD-1) vs. Sadar Anjuman E

Islamia and another4 considering Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC held

at para-No.12 as under:

“The onus to place the relevant material for a direction to

detain the judgment-debtor in civil prison is always on the

decree-holder.”

18. In the case on hand, the Trial Court in its Order held that

there is no evidence put-forth by the decree-holder to show that

who has had committed the violation and mode of violation of the

3 AIR 1987 Kant 26.

4 (2002) 1 An WR 403.

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 9 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

decree. It was also observed that the decree-holder simply filed

the copy of Judgment in Second Appeal No.36 of 2005 passed by

the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad

and he did not place either affidavit or oral evidence to establish

that the judgment-debtors had an opportunity to obey the decree

and they had willfully failed to obey it.

19. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner/decree-holder is that the respondents/judgmentdebtors filed an application under Section 47 CPC in the

execution petition, and it would amount to disobedience of the

decree.

20. The judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 47

CPC raising question/objections against execution regarding

identity of the property.

21. Questions whether the property in question is included in

the decree or relating to identity would fall under Section 47 CPC.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of

filing an application under Section 47 CPC by the judgement

debtors/respondents would not amount to willful disobedience of

the decree.

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 10 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

22. The revision-petitioner/decree-holder in his application

before the Trial Court pleaded that the respondents/judgmentdebtors willfully disobeyed the decree for prohibitory injunction,

contending that the respondents/judgment-debtors interfering

with his possession and enjoyment over the schedule property

even after the decree.

23. The revision-petitioner/decree-holder, as held by the

learned Trial Judge, did not place any material to establish the

mode of violation which causes obstruction of his possession and

enjoyment over the schedule property and the judgment-debtors

willfully violated the decree.

24. The Court shall exercise discretion only when the decreeholder establish that the judgment-debtor has had an

opportunity to obey the decree but, he willfully disobeyed the

same. Unless, these two conditions are satisfied, the Court

cannot order detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison.

Since the provision is extremely penal, those two conditions must

be proved strictly by placing cogent and reliable evidence

establishing the above two ingredients to order detention of the

judgment-debtor in civil prison under Order XXI Rule 32 (1) CPC.

The burden is on the decree-holder to establish his case pleaded

in the case.

2023:APHC:23400

BVLNC, J CRP No.2489 of 2016

Page 11 of 11 Dt.18.07.2023

25. The impugned Order would show that the revisionpetitioner simply filed copy of Judgment in Second Appeal No.36

of 2005 and reported no evidence on his behalf, though, it was

alleged that the respondents have violated the decree. He did not

adduce any evidence whatsoever proving that the judgmentdebtors disobeyed the decree. Therefore, there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned Order passed by the learned Trial

Court.

26. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition is „Dismissed‟. There shall

be no order as to costs.

27. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

18th July 2023.

Note: LR Copy is to be marked.

B/o.

DNB

2023:APHC:23400