COMMON ORDER:

Both the C.R.Ps. are filed by JDRs 9 to 13; while C.R.P.No.1224 of 2019 is filed against the order in E.A.No.58 of 2019 in E.P.No.22 of 2018 dismissing the application to stay the executing proceedings, the other C.R.P.No.2839 of 2019 is filed against the order dated 21.02.2019 allowing the E.P.No.22 of 2018 and issuing warrant against JDRs 9 to 13 to commit them to civil prison for violation of injunction decree in O.S.No.1 of 2000.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the two C.R.Ps. can be said to be filed in the following background:

a) O.S.No.1 of 2000 was filed by respondent/DHR/plaintiff on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, initially against defendants 1 and 2, who are his father and elder sister, seeking perpetual injunction decree in respect of plaint schedule tiled house and its appurtenant site. Pending suit, as the 1st defendant died, his L.Rs. were brought on record as defendants 3 to 8. Defendants 2 to 8 filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial Court in para 13 of its judgment, while categorically holding that the plaintiff was in continuous lawful possession of the schedule property, granted the decree in his favour. It observed that the rights of the defendants, if any, in respect of the plaint schedule property are concerned, they have to be worked out in a separate suit.

b) Aggrieved, the defendants filed A.S.No.43 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Since the 2nd defendant in the suit died, her L.Rs. were brought on record. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 15.02.2017 by confirming the judgment of the lower Court.

c) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.22 of 2018 against JDRs 9 to 13 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC to commit them to civil prison for violation of injunction decree. His plea was that JDRs 9 to 13 were causing obstruction and unnecessarily picking up quarrels with him and throwing sand which was heaped by him for levelling the site and to install fencing to safeguard his property. They were also threatening to file false criminal cases against him. He thus sought to execute the injunction decree against them. It appears, JDR No.9 filed counter contending that the DHR was trying to interfering with JDRs’ possession over the E.P. schedule property with the help of rowdy elements and the employees of Padma Sai Finance. The DHR and his men threw away the water storage container (kundi). The JDRs have been in possession and enjoyment of the E.P. schedule property since their childhood and the DHR by showing false tax receipts obtained decree. The JDRs further contended that pursuant to the observations in the judgment in O.S.No.1 of 2000, the JDRs filed a declaration suit in respect of their shares and the said suit O.S.No.____of 2018 and I.A.No.1232 of 2018 are pending adjudication. Since the JDRs, who are the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the E.P. schedule property, the question of their violating the decree does not arise.

d) The execution Court negatived the contention of the JDRs and allowed the E.P. with the following observation:

“Moreover, once a permanent injunction decree is passed and the same is confirmed by the 1st appellate Court, the JDRs are supposed to obey the orders of this Court. The pleadings of the JDR itself show that they are in possession of the E.P. Schedule property which amounts to violation of permanent injunction decree passed in the above suit. Therefore, this Court safely concluded without going into other merits of the case that the JDRs 9 to 13 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the DHR over the E.P. schedule property. There are merits in this petition, the DHR is entitled to get his relief sought in this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.”

Thus, the execution Court held that the plea of the JDRs that they are in possession of the E.P. schedule property itself amounts to violation of the permanent injunction