JONNA RAMU NAIDU Vs. KANCHERLA SATYAVATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel on record Mr. E.V.Bhagiratha Rao and Mr. K. Bhaskara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order made in A.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram dated 22.11.2000. The appellants-Judgment-debtors in the said A.S.No.2 of 1998 are the revision petitioners. The appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa in E.P.No.38 of 1996 in O.S.No.280 of 1988 (on the file of the District Munsif Court, S. Kota) dated 24.11.1997. The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, the decree holder, filed E.P.No.38 of 1996 in O.S.No.280 of 1988 under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for removal of obstruction on the plaint schedule site as he had obtained a decree for both permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The revision petitioners- Judgment-debtors, after appearing before the Court of first instance, filed a counter denying the allegations and had taken a stand that they had not violated the decree.

(3.) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondent-Decree-holder, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of the revision petitioners-Judgment-debtors, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and the Court of first instance had directed the revision petitioners-Judgment-debtors to remove the obstructions within two weeks and aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners had preferred A.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellate Court had arrived at a conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed observing that the appeal itself is not maintainable.