KALPURI ELLAMMA Vs. NELLUTLA VENKATA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed OS no,455 of 1985 in the Court of Principal junior Civil Judge, Warangal, against one sri Rajamallu, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 14. 10. 1996. Aggrieved thereby, the sole defendant filed A. S. No. 71 of 1996 in the court of District Judge, Warangal. The appeal was dismissed as abated, since rajamallu died on 2. 9. 1998 during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners herein viz. , the wife and the daughter of rajamallu, filed IA No. 144 of 2003 before the District Court, under Section 5 of the limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1440 days in presenting the application to set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal. The application was dismissed on 19. 12. 2003 and CRP No. 4108 of 2004 filed against it was also dismissed on 7. 10. 2004.

(2.) THE respondent filed EP. No. 1087 of 2002 alleging that the petitioners obstructed the construction of compound wall around the suit schedule property. The executing Court issued notice to the petitioners. Several objections were raised, including the maintainability of the EP against the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor straight away. The executing Court conducted enquiry and ultimately allowed the EP. , through its order, dated 9. 12. 2004, directing detention of the petitioners in civil prison for a period of 10 days. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ep was filed against the petitioners straight away and no application was filed with a prayer to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment- debtor on record. He further submits that the petitioners have obstructed the construction of compound wall, being under the impression that the decree passed against Rajamallu is not binding upon them and that they are entitled to use the 9 feet passage across the suit schedule property as an access to the main road. He also submits that the order passed by the executing Court is beyond the scope of its powers.