( 1. ) THE Civil Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant/ Judgment Debtor has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 22.01.2004 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai.

( 2. ) THE Executing Court while passing the order in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 on 22.01.2004, has among other things observed that '... any act of the respondent disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner while decree is in force, amounts to contempt and therefore the respondent is liable for punishment and resultantly, ordered issuance of notice to the respondent for appearing before it and explain as to why he should not be sentenced to civil prison.'

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that the order of the Executing Court in E.P.No.4 of 2002 in O.S.No.180 of 1996 dated 22.01.2004, is contrary to law and unsustainable and as a matter of fact, the procedures envisaged under Order 21 Rule 32(1) and Order 21 Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been adhered to by the Executing Court.

( 3. ) IT is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/decree holder has not established that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has violated the injunction decree and indeed, the decree being an ex-parte one, the Executing Court ought to have waited for the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

( 4. ) ADVANCING her arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor that Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins that the burden is on the respondent/decree holder to establish that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has violated the decree ad not otherwise.

Lastly, it is the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court has not passed any order on merits on 13.03.2004 after the notice has been issued under Order 21 Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/ judgment debtor submits that after issuance of notice in E.P.No.4 of 2002 no opportunity has been given to the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to adduce evidence in the matter in issue and before issuance of notice, the Executing Court has come to a wrong conclusion while passing orders in E.P.No.4 of 2002 to the effect that any act of the respondent disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner while decree is in force, amounts to contempt and therefore the respondent is liable for punishment' and in fact, the Executing Court has prejudged the issue and after issuance of notice in E.P.No.4 of 2002, the trial Court has not conducted any enquiry and as such, the order has not been passed on merits and also in the manner known to law.

( 6. ) IT is not out of place for this Court to pertinently point out that in E.P.No.4 of 2002 filed by the respondent/decree holder, the respondent/decree holder has sought the relief of arresting the revision petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant for committing contempt in respect of the decree in O.S.No.180 of 1996 dated 20.06.2001 as per Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The respondent/decree holder/petitioner, before the Executing Court in E.P.No.4 of 2002 has filed a sworn affidavit wherein he has mentioned that in the suit properties, there are Karuvela trees and on 27.12.2001, he has entered into the suit property and has been cleaning the same and at that time, the revision petitioner/ defendant/judgment debtor has come to the suit property and interfered with the enjoyment of the suit property by causing obstruction, etc. and further, he has given a police complaint against the revision petitioner/ defendant because has has threatened the respondent/decree holder b