ARULMIGU MAYURNATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM Vs. M.K. SUBRAMANIARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in E.P.No. 228 of 2005 in O.S.No.536 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputtur.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.536 of 1992. The suit is for recovery of possession in respect of first schedule property and for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of second schedule property. Alleging that the defendant/respondent has put up a construction in violation of the decree for injunction, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 32 of C.P.C. to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order of injunction granted by the lower Court. Taking note of the fact that the construction was commenced during the pendency of the suit and that the decree for injunction granted by the lower Court is not violated by the respondent and that the decree for mandatory injunction cannot be enforced beyond the period of limitation namely three years, the execution petition was dismissed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The executing Court has also found that the revision petitioner has not proved that the construction was put up by the respondent after the decree for injunction was granted. Incidentally, the lower Court has recorded a finding that the building was handed over to the revision petitioner and that the same building was let out to the respondent on fresh terms. When the petitioner has taken symbolical delivery of the property and he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the property by collecting rent for the building from the respondent, the petition filed under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC to punish the respondent for violation of decree for injunction may not be proper.