JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed in E.P.No.343 of 2008 in O.S.No.599 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli.

The above civil revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtors challenging the order of the Executing Court namely, First Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, in E.P.No.343 of 2008.

2. The brief facts which are relevant for disposing of the above civil revision petition, shorn of details, are that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.599 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The property in question has been described as follows:-

Tiruchirapalli Town, Thillainagar, Vadavur Nadu Street, within the following four boundaries;

- South of East West Street

- North of Chinnaiyan's property and Sevarajar's property

- West of Yusuf Rowther's vacant site.

- East of Temple's vacant site.

The property measuring 42 feet East West on the northern side and 46 feet East West on the Southern side and 61 feet North South. The property namely site as well as construction thereon. Door No.22 Old Ward No.3. New Ward No.D. Old Block No.2. New Block No.29. Old T.S.No.29. New T.S.No.2 and 3.

3. The bone of contention is with reference to the property measuring an extent of 61 feet north-south. The suit was decreed after contest, by judgment and decree dated 28.12.2005. It appears that thereafter the decree holders/plaintiffs had filed an Execution Proceeding in E.P.No.343 of 2008 stating as follows:-

It its, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to proceed against the respondent/defendant/Judgment Debtor for having disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction passed against him in O.S.No.599 of 1988 and thereby committing contempt of Court, for which, the respondent/defendant/judgment debtor has got to be arrested and put him in civil prison and thus render justice.

4. In the execution petition, the respondents/plaintiffs, has not given any details as to how the defendant had violated the decree passed in O.S.No.599 of 1988 or that despite giving him an opportunity to comply with the decree the defendant had failed to so comply. The Executing Court has ordered arrest of revision petitioner/defendant on 23.10.2009. Though the revision petition has not been filed challenging this order and is challenging the later order dated 05.08.2010, however considering the fact that the execution proceeding is filed for arrest whereby the personal liberty is sought to be taken away, this Court has considered the arguments advanced by both sides on the validity of the order of arrest exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has not violated the order of the Court and that the construction which has been put up by the petitioner/defendant is very much within his property.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs made a submission that the petitioner/defendant has demolished his northern wall and put up a new construction encroaching the property of the plaintiffs and therefore, this act that has forced the plaintiffs to approach the Execution Court. These contentions come to the fore only during the arguments.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the papers.

8. To dispose this revision it is necessary to first understand the scope of object of Order 21 Rule 32 (1) of Civil Procedure Code. The provision of Order 21 Rule 32(1) of CPC would read as follows:-

32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction— (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of