GUDIKANDULA NARSAIAH Vs. GUDIKANDULA VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order in E.P. No.6 of 1992 in O.S. No.201 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Huzurabad.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the decreeholder - plaintiff in the suit. The decreeholder - plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction relating to immovable property in O.S. No.201 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Huzurabad and a decree was passed on 26-8-1987. It is averred that since the son and grandson, respondents 4 and 5, who are the legal representatives of judgment debtor No.2, who died, had been violating the decree for permanent injunction, the present E.P. is filed for the purpose of executing the said decree in accordance with Order 21. Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court below had dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the decree for perpetual injunction cannot be executed against the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor No.2 i.e., the son and grandson.

(3.) Sri P.V. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the view expressed by the Court below that a decree for permanent injunction cannot be executed against the legal representatives, is totally unsustainable in law. It was further contended that, may be, that a decree for permanent injunction normally can be stated as an action in personam and it may be binding on the parties to the litigation, but that does not mean that such a decree cannot be executed against the legal representatives especially in the light of the principles underlying Section 11, Section 146 CPC and also Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the observation of the Court below that Order 21, Rule 11-A CPC was not complied with, also is not sustainable. Even otherwise, the Court below could have given an opportunity to rectify such a defect, if any. Hence the Court below had committed a jurisdictional error and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside.