KATTULA CHINA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. PINEPE YESUPADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/JDr No.1 under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, in E.A.No.589 of 2008 in E.P.No.218 of 2008 in O.S.No.300 of 1998 wherein and whereby the executing Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 151 of CPC seeking police aid for the execution of decree of mandatory injunction.

(2.) The case of the respondent/DHr No.2 before executing Court in brief is that:

(3.) The revision petitioner/R.1 filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit of the respondent before trial Court. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that there is no direction in the decree for delivery of property to the respondent/DHr No.2 and they preferred A.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku against the Judgment and decree passed by trial Court, which is pending wherein they also filed petition for stay of execution in which the respondent sought time to file counter and recently filed counter, which is coming up for hearing. He submits that execution petition filed under Order XXI Rue 35 C.P.C is not maintainable and petition has to be filed under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C and before passing of any order notice has to be issued to them and if any violation of orders of the Court Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C specifies to attach the property of violator and send him to civil prison but relief claimed by the respondent in execution petition and also in police aid petition are not tenable. He also pleaded about pendency of appeal against the decree and Judgment passed by trial Court and another litigation in respect of same property. He prays to dismiss the petition.