P JAYANTHA RAO Vs. V VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioners-Judgment debtors filed the present Revision aggrieved by the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, dated 22-3-1989 made" in E.P.No.42/97 in O.S.No. 258/91.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as 'Judgment-debtors' and 'Decreeholder',

(3.) The Decree-holder-respondent herein filed E.P.No.42/97 in O.S.No.258/91 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad seeking the relief of attachment of the property of the judgment-debtors and also detention in civil prison for violating the decree of permanent injunction obtained by him in O.S.No. 258/91 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad dated 10-8-1992. The case of the Decree-holder is that inspite of the decree of perpetual injunction granted against the judgment-debtors relating to the schedule property, on 1-4-1997 they had trespassed into the said property and also had attempted to make constructions thereon and when the Decree-holder resisted, the Judgment-debtors had threatened him with dire consequences. The Judgment-debtors have filed a counter stating that Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C.is not applicable since the said provision can be invoked only in case of executing of money decrees and not otherwise and the decree passed in O.S.No.258/91 is a decree for perpetual injunction which is not executable under order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C and it was also further stated that the Judgment-debtors have never violated the decree of permanent injunction and it was also further stated that the 1st respondent is owner and the vendor of a piece of site in an extent of 52 sq. yards and the 2nd Judgment-debtor is the vendee thereof and the sale in favour of the 2nd Judgment-debtor is covered by a registered sale deed and the 2nd Judgment-debtor being the owner of 52 sq. yards, had constructed a house thereon and the said house was assessed by the Gram Panchayat, Kodad and he has been paying the tax also regularly to the Gram Panchayat and he had purchased the site in which he had constructed the house even prior to the filing of the suit within his boundary and they had never attempted or violated the decree at any point of time. On behalf of the Decree-holder, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of the Judgment-debtors R.Ws.l to 4 were examined and Exs.R-1 to Respondent-8 were marked. The Court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence had arrived at a conclusion that there is wilful disobedience of the decree by the Judgment-debtors and had ordered their detention in civil prison for a period of one month and immovable properties of the judgment-debtors 1 and 2, if any were ordered to be attached on furnishing the particulars of the properties by the Decree-holder and aggrieved by the same, the Judgment-debtors have filed the present Revision.