Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
G Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
Sankarapu Gangadhar Prasad – Respondent
ORDER :
This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 09.04.2018 passed in EPSR No.2861 of 2017 in LAC No.01 of 2013 in O.S.No.225 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, seeking intervention of this Court to direct the execution Court to register the said execution petition and take it on file.
2. The suit in O.S.No.225 of 2010 was filed on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu for permanent injunction against the defendant and her men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant entered into compromise before the Mandal Legal Services Committee of Jammalamadugu on 16.02.2013 and as such an award was passed as follows:
The plaintiff agreeing compromise memo that is not claiming any rights in re
The court affirmed that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced despite ongoing disputes, ensuring that decree holders can secure their rights.
Once a decree becomes final and specifies a period for execution, the parties are bound to execute it within that period.
Court emphasized that amendments to execution petitions for clarity do not alter property identity and are permissible.
Decrees regarding immovable property must be upheld despite minor identification errors, allowing for amendments under CPC to ensure proper execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree of permanent injunction is binding on all parties, and relief can be sought under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
