This revision, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment-debtors, challenges the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in E.P.No.19 of 2010 in O.S.No.273 of 1998.

Heard Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manik Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

The respondent herein instituted a suit, being O.S.No.273 of 1998, for injunction against the petitioners herein. The said suit was referred to the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat Bench at Nalgonda passed an award dated 23.09.2000, which reads as under:

"Both the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 are present. They have settled the matter. The Defendants have no objection to decree the suit land in Sy.No.199 measuring 13 guntas were situated at Kotaiahgudem H/o.Udathalapalli Village of Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda bounded by North: Way after the land of M.Anjireddy and others. South: The land of Plaintiff after road, East: Land of Plaintiff, West: Land of D.Ramesh and brothers. Accordingly in view of the compromise the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for refund court fee paid by him as per the rules."

In the said suit, O.S.No.273 of 1998, the plaintiff/ respondent herein filed E.P.No.19 of 2010 in the month of August, 2010 seeking to send the petitioners herein to civil prison under Order 21 Rule 32 r/w Section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that they violated the decree in O.S.No.273 of 1998. Resisting the said execution petition, the judgment debtors/petitioners herein filed a counter. In support of his case, the decree holder/respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one Sri Parshaganit Babu as P.W.2. On the other hand, the 2nd Judgment debtor/2nd petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and also examined R.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf.

The learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, by virtue of an order dated 24.03.2014, allowed E.P.No.19 of 2010, directing the J.Drs. to be sent to civil imprisonment for not less than six months. Calling in question, the validity and the legal acceptability of the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent herein before this Court, resisting the revision.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is full of assumptions and presumptions and the same cannot be a ground to order imprisonment. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, the learned Junior Civil Judge ought to have rejected the applications filed by the petitioners herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the learned Junior Civil Judge placed the burden on the judgment-debtors instead on the decree-holder to prove his case. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Koya Ranga Reddy and others v. Koya Narayana Reddy and others (2007(3) ALT 689).

Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the decree holder/respondent herein that the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is strictly in conformity with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that in view of the conduct of the judgment debtors/petitioners herein, the leaned Junior Civil Judge is correct in ordering imprisonment. It is further argued by the learned counsel that as the impugned order is supported by valid, cogent and convincing reasons, t