1. The decree holder in E.P.No.412 of 2000 in O.S.No.126 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal laid this revision questioning the orders of the execution Court dated 09.08.2004. The decree holder laid the execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison for not honouring the decree. Through a very well written impugned order, the execution Court dismissed the execution petition. Inter alia, the execution Court held that petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC would not lie and an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 35 IPC might lie against the judgment debtor. The learned Judge also held that the execution Court cannot go beyond the decree.

2. The third daughter of the decree holder by name Sobha was given in marriage to the judgment debtor in 1986.

It is the case of the judgment debtor that the decree holder settled 680 square yards of house plot in Survey No.1003 situate at Hunter Road, Srinivasanagar Colony, Hanumakonda, in favour of his daughter Sobha towards pusupu kunkuma by announcing the same in the presence of the elders and the members of the family. It is the further case of the judgment debtor that he constructed a two portioned house bearing door No.1-7-859 in the plot received by his wife by way of settlement from her father, that the premises constructed by the judgment debtor consists of two portions and that the rear portion of the premises was used as residential premises and the front portion of the premises has been used as office. The wife of the judgment debtor (Sobha) gave birth to a daughter by name Keerthana and a son by name Karthik.

3. Unfortunately, Sobha died shortly after she gave birth to her son. It is indeed the case of the judgment debtor that Sobha was suffering from heart ailment even prior to her marriage and that Sobha died on account of her health problems. Be that as it may, fortunately there is no dispute about the nature of the death of Sobha, whether it was natural, owing to ill-health or was suspicious.

4. The dispute lies elsewhere. After the demise of Sobha, misunderstandings developed between the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor contends that the decree holder forced the judgment debtor to marry a girl, whom the judgment debtor declined to marry and that the decree holder developed contempt towards the judgment debtor since then. The decree holder on the other hand contends that the misunderstandings are in view of the attitude of the judgment debtor in attempting to grab 340 square yards constituting half of the alleged settled site. According to the decree holder, 340 square yards alone was gifted to Sobha and that the judgment debtor has been trying to lay claim over the entire 680 square yards of vacant site.

5. As disputes arose between the decree holder and the judgment debtor, the decree holder laid O.S.No.126 of 1997 against the judgment debtor in respect of 340 square yards of site. It was a suit by the decree holder against the judgment debtor seeking for perpetual injunction. The judgment debtor got a suit filed as the next friend of a minor child in O.S.No.1100 of 1998 seeking for a perpetual injunction against the decree holder. The judgment debtor in fact obtained a temporary injunction in O.S.No.1100 of 1998.

6. Alleging that despite temporary injunction against the decree holder, the decree holder trespassed on to the property covered by O.S.No.1100 of 1998 along with his supports, broke open the locks of the premises and took away the articles found therein, the judgment debtor lodged a complaint before Subedari Police Station. The complaint was registered as Crime No.6 of 1999 for the offences u/s.379, 380 and 488 IPC. The judgment debtor also filed a case as the next friend of his minor children in O.S.No.71 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal seeking for