AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Battu Devanand, J
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 23.12.2021 in E.P.No.44 of 2018 in O.S.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.
In compliance of the order, dated 30.06.2022 of this Court, personal notices were issued to the respondents by the petitioners counsel through the registered post with acknowledgment due. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed Memo of Proof of Service on 13.07.2022, which shows that the notices sent to the respondents were returned with an endorsement “ addressee refused’. Therefore, as per the settled law, it will be treated as deemed service. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance for the Respondents.
The Petitioners are the Decree Holders and the respondents are the Judgment Debtors in E..P.No.44 of 2018 in O.S.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.
The case of the petitioners is that they filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, against the respondents for permanent injunction and the same was decreed on 05.01.2018. Thereafter, they filed E.P.No.44 of 2018 seeking to Issue Notice to the respondents/J.DRs under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and to order for attachment of the property of the J.Drs or detain the J.Drs in the Civil Prison for a period according to law for their disobedience of Permanent Injunction Order dated 05.01.2018 granted in O.S.No.189 of 2012. The Executing Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Order under Revision is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Executing Court ought to have seen that in spite of the Decree and Judgment of Permanent Injunction passed by the Civil Court, the respondents dug an open drain in the red mark portion of the suit schedule property adjacent to the compound wall. The Executing Court ought not to have observed that the decree holders failed to prove that the judgment debtors had discharged used water into open drain causing damage to the compound wall and obstructed the decree holders from affecting the repairs. The Executing Court ought to have seen that Exs. P.2 and P.3 Photographs coupled with Ex.P.4-Legal Notice and the evidence of PW.1 would disclose that the judgment debtors discharged their used sullage water into the drain and also obstructed the decree holders from entering into the red marked portion of the suit schedule property by setting up a gate. Aggrieved by the findings of the Executing Court in E.P.No.44 of 2018 in O.S.No.189 of 2012, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree holders.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.