R.LATHA Vs. G.NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.02.2012, in E.P.No.45 of 2011 in O.S.No.2720 of 2004, on the file of the learned X Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

(2.) Even though notice was served on respondent No.2, he has not entered appearance. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have entered appearance through an advocate. However, at the hearing, their counsel is not present.

(3.) The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for a decree to direct the respondents not to make any attempt to remove the common wall existing in between the properties of the petitioner and respondents and to restrain them from putting any ventilators or windows towards her property with a further direction to them to remove the windows and ventilators erected illegally, by way of mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed by the learned X Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad on 19.02.2009. A.S.No.112 of 2009 filed by the respondents against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 20.08.2010. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the above mentioned EP for execution of the decree for removing the ventilators and windows projected towards her house as shown in the red marked portion of the plan filed in the suit. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia averred that the prayer in the execution petition is vague, improper and incorrect and that in the guise of removing the ventilators and windows of the respondents/judgment debtors, the petitioner wants to demolish the compound wall existing in between the houses of the parties. It is further averred that against the judgment in A.S.No.112 of 2009, the respondents filed S.A.No.1518 of 2010 in this Court which is stated to be pending. The executing Court, as noted above, by its order, dated 28.02.2012, dismissed the said EP. A perusal of the order under revision would show that the EP was dismissed on the reasoning that the executing Court cannot look into the plan filed in the suit and that as the petitioner failed to show the number of windows and ventilators projected over her property and how many of them are to be removed, the decree cannot be executed. It is further observed that the decree granted by the lower Court and the relief sought for by the petitioner are inconsistent and contrary (sic "mutually contradictory").