Wilful violation of permanent injunctions justifies enforcement actions, including civil imprisonment, and courts will not entertain retrials regarding possession claims once established.

COMMON ORDER:

1. The Petitioners are the judgment debtors/defendant Nos.3 and 4.

2. CRP.No.217 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in E.P.No.26 of 2017 in O.S.No.438 of 2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

3. CRP.No.218 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in E.P.No.27 of 2017 in O.S.No.439 of 2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

4. CRP.No.328 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in E.A.No.205 of 2020 in E.P.No.27 of 2017 in O.S.No.439 of 2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

5. CRP.No.331 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in E.A.No.204 of 2020 in E.P.No.26 of 2017 in O.S.No.438 of 2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

6. Brief facts of the case: Anterior to the institution of present suits where the orders passed in execution proceedings are called in question, the reason for institution of those suits would give an insight to this chronic litigation.

7. The predecessors of the Petitioners i.e. late Thotakura Govindu had filed OS.No.268 of 1997 against the predecessors of the plaintiffs seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.07.1994 with regard to the very same schedule property. After contest, the suit was dismissed for the specific performance of contract by order dated 23.09.2004 and was decreed for refund of Rs.80,000/- due to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs 2 to 6 were directed to deliver vacant possession of the scheduled property within six (6) months, which was confirmed in A.S.No.192 of 2004 by order dated 29.01.2007.The second appeal filed thereon i.e. SA.No.392 of 2007 was also dismissed by order dated 21.12.2010. The copies of the judgments in suit, appeal and second appeal were marked as Exs.A.12, A.13 and A.14.

8. Thereafter, two suits i.e. O.S.Nos.438 and 439 of 2011 were filed by Respondent No.1 in CRP No.217 of 2021 and CRP No.331 of 2021 and Respondent No.1 in CRP No.218 of 2021 and CRP No.328 of 2021 respectively seeking permanent injunction against the Petitioners herein (Defendant No.3 and 4 in both the suits) and others from interfering with the suit schedule property.

9. A Common trial was conducted and common judgment was passed by the trial Court on 30.09.2016 decreeing the suits in favour of the plaintiffs and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants i.e Petitioners among others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. Questioning the same, Petitioners filed A.S.Nos.183 and 184 of 2016 and the same were dismissed by IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada on 08.08.2018. It is submitted that S.A.Nos.612 of 2019 and 22 of 2020 were filed before this Court and no interim orders were passed suspending the injunction granted by the trial Court.

10. It is also submitted that the Petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs/decree holders vide O.S.No.518 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 02.06.2015. The Appeal A.S.No.93 of 2015 filed thereon was also dismissed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada on 08.08.2018. S.A.No.600 of 2019 filed thereon is pending before this Court.

11. As the defendants in O.S.Nos.438 and 439 of 2011 were violating the orders of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court and are interfering, Respondent/decree holder filed EP.Nos.26 of 2017 in O.S.No.438 of 2011 and EP.No.27 of 2017 in OS.No.439 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC seeking to punish the Petitioner for violation of the injunction orders. In the respective execution petitions, applications were filed vide EA.Nos.20