N MASTHANAIAH Vs. KONGARA VENKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though served, respondents did not put in appearance.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Father of the revision petitioner obtained a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents for removing the ridge and from excavating a channel. Alleging that in violation of the said decree, respondents excavated a channel and removed the ridge, revision petitioners filed E.P.No.24 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the removed ridge and to close the channel and for arrest the respondents for violation of the decree passed against them. Respondents filed a counter inter alia contending that the E.P. is barred by time. Holding that the remedy of the revision petitioners is to file a separate suit for mandatory injunction, but not an E.P. for restoration of the status quo ante, while negativing the contention of the respondents that the E.P. is barred by time, the executing Court dismissed the E.P. Hence this revision.