HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5187 of 2011
and
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2011
Date: August 22, 2014
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5187 of 2011:
Between:
Smt. Nellutla Venkata Laxmi.
… Petitioner and
1. Smt. Kalpuri Ellamma & another.
… Respondents * * *
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2011:
Between:
Smt. Nellutla Venkata Laxmi.
… Petitioner and
1. Smt. Kalpuri Ellamma & another.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5187 of 2011 and
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner in these two civil revision petitions is the decree-holder in O.S.No.445 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. By virtue of the said decree, the respondents were perpetually injuncted from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. The petitioner then filed E.P.No.1087 of 2002 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, alleging that the respondents obstructed the construction of a compound wall by him in the suit schedule property.
2. Earlier, this Court had occasion to deal with the execution proceedings in O.S.No.445 of 1985, in C.R.P.No.6700 of 2004. By order dated 27.08.2008, this Court directed that the respondents/judgment debtors should not obstruct construction of the compound wall by the petitioner/decree-holder and that in the event they violated it, they would be liable to be detained in a civil prison straight away if the petitioner/decree-holder proved such interference. This Court also made it clear that in the event the judgment debtors violated the decree in any manner, it would be open to the decree-holder to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
3. While so, the petitioner/decree-holder filed E.A.No.85 of 2009 in E.P.No.1087 of 2002 seeking appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner to get the compound wall constructed in the suit schedule property, in the light of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6700 of 2004, by removing the encroachments made by the judgment debtors during the pendency of the E.P. The said E.A. was dismissed by the executing Court by order dated 06.09.2010. This order is called in question in C.R.P.No.5187 of 2011.
4. It appears that the petitioner filed E.A.No.132 of 2010 in E.P.No.1087 of 2002 seeking review of the order dated 06.09.2010 which is the subject matter of C.R.P.No.5187 of 2011. This review application was dismissed by the executing Court by order dated 21.02.2011. C.R.P.No.1093 of 2011 is filed against this order.
5. Perusal of the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by the executing Court reflects that the Court took into account that the prayer for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to enable the decree-holder to construct a compound wall went beyond the decree of perpetual injunction granted to him and also the direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.6700 of 2004. The executing Court accordingly passed the first order dated 06.09.2010 dismissing E.A.No.85 of 2009.
6. Insofar as the review petition in E.A.No.132 of 2010 is concerned, the executing Court held that a review would lie only on limited grounds and as the same were not established, the only remedy for the decree-holder was to prefer a revision and not seek review. Holding so, the executing Court dismissed the review petition.
7. The order passed by this Court on 27.08.2008 in C.R.P.No.6700 of 2004 clearly demonstrates that the judgment debtors, who were the petitioners therein, were directed not to obstruct construction of the compound wall by the decree-holder and in the event they did so, they were held liable to be detained in a civil prison straight away, if the decree-holder proved such interference. Neither the decree in the suit nor the order passed by this Court entitled the decree-holder to seek appointment of a Commissioner for constructing the compound wall. Such a relief went beyond the decree and as pointed out by the Court below, such relief did not flow from the decree or the order passed by this Court in the earlier C.R.P. Further as pointed out by this Court in the earlier C.R.P, it is for the decree-holder to take necessary steps in accordance with law if the judgment debtors violated the decree in any other manner. The endeavour of the decree-holder to travel beyond the decree and seek appointment of a Commissioner for constructing a compound wall was therefore rightly rejected by the Court below. Further, this Court also finds no error on the part of the executing Court in refusing to entertain a review petition, as no ground was made out in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. to warrant such review.
8. The civil revision petitions are therefore devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Date: August 22, 2014. BSB HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5187 of 2011
and
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1093 of 2011
Date: August 22, 2014
BSB