The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2007 made in E.A.No.28 of 2004 in E.P.No.5 of 2003 in O.S.No.79 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad.

A short and interesting point raised by Sri I. Aga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that without there being a decree for mandatory injunction, can the trial Court order execution and direct the bailiff to remove the structures and handover possession of the vacant land?

Before adverting to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Sudhershan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.79 of 1999 for recovery of possession of Ac.0.06 guntas of land in S.No.1513 situated in Garrepalli village, Sulthanabad Mandal. The defendants filed written statement. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, posted the suit for defendants’ evidence, however the defendants have not chosen to let in any evidence either oral or documentary. Based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit on 30.7.2002 declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and further ordered recovery of possession of Ac.0.04 guntas of land from the 1st defendant and Ac.0.02 guntas of land from the 2nd defendant. When the plaintiff filed E.P.No.5 of 2003 seeking execution of the decree, the defendants, instead of preferring an appeal against the judgment, filed a separate suit i.e. O.S.No.24 of 2005 for cancellation of the decree, dated 30.7.2002, however the suit was dismissed on 9.2.2007. The trial Court, in E.P.No.5 of 2003, issued warrant to the bailiff directing him to handover possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff-decree holder, and accordingly, the bailiff visited the land on 17.9.2004 for execution of warrant, but as there were structures like residential houses in the land he could not execute the warrant and deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiff to file E.A.No.28 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. requesting the trial Court to give directions to the bailiff to demolish the constructions made by the judgment debtors/defendants in Ac.0.06 guntas of land. The defendants, on notice, put in their appearance and filed counter opposing the petition and stated that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is false and because of the ignorance of the defendants, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree and thereafter filed the present petition seeking delivery of the possession. According to the defendants, even by the time the plaintiff instituted the suit, the structures were in existence and the plaintiff totally suppressed the facts.

On the strength of the pleadings of both the plaintiff and the defendants, the Court framed a point for consideration as to whether there are any justifiable grounds to direct the Bailiff of the Court to demolish the structures existing in the suit schedule land in order to deliver the land in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

Having analyzed the entire point, the learned Junior Civil Judge, while rejecting the defence put in by the defendants, gave a direction to the Bailiff to deliver the suit schedule land to the plaintiff after demolishing the existing structures and clearing all movables belonging to the defendants. If, for any reason, the defendants do not co-operate in removing the movables from the existing structures, the bailiff was further directed to make an inventory of all the movables in the presence of two respectable panchas i.e. Panchayat Secretary and Village Servant and keep all the movables in the custody of Panchayat Secretary to be delivered to the plaintiff as per Rule-35 of Order XXI C.P.C. Challenging t