IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CIVIL REVISION No. 104 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

DULICHAND S/O DEVRAM GURJUR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILL-BHATAYAN BUJURG, TEH.

KASRAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER (MRS. SWATI SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

AND ANOK SINGH S/O BABUSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 59

1.

YEARS, VILL-LODHI TEH. KASRAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

KANCHAN BAI W/O ANOK SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. VILLAGE LODHI TEHSIL KASRAWAD DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

JETENDRA S/O ANOK SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 40

3. YEARS, VILLAGE LODHI TEHSIL KASRAWAD DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

DHARMENDRA S/O ANOK SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 33

4. YEARS, VILLAGE LODHI TEHSIL KASRAWAD DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:-

O R D E R

Heard on the point of admission.

This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/decree holder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Class-1, Kasrawad, District - Mandleshwar (MP) in Execution Application No.06 of 2017 by which the application of the enforcement of the decree was filed as it was being willfully disobeyed by the respondent/judgment debtor and the same was rejected by the executing court.

(2) The facts of the case in nutshell is that on 08.09.2016, a decree was passed in the original suit No.10-A of 2016 against the respondents and a permanent injunction order was passed restricting the respondents/judgment debtors not to create any obstacles in the way of the petitioner/decree holder and also not to interfere with the natural flow of rain water which crosses through the 'med' of the agricultural land of the ownership of petitioner/decree holder.

(3) That, thereafter the respondents had started disobeying the decree court and started disturbing the natural flow of the water from the land of the ownership of the petitioner and of the adjoining government land. Later on, when the petitioner opposed such act of the respondent as against the decree dated 08.09.2016, the respondent misbehaved and gets aggressive and in this aggression, the respondent gets started abusing and misbehaving with the petitioner and, as a result, of which the petitioner even reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police in writing and his personal secretary has refused to register the complaint and the copy of written report dated

22.02.2017 has been annexed with this application for perusal.

(4) That, the petitioner then filed an application before the learned trial Judge mentioning the disobedience caused by the respondent towards the decree and made a prayer of sending the respondents to civil jail because of the disobedience so caused and the copy of application has been filed for perusal. Thereafter, the case was registered as Ex.A No.06 of 2017 in the court of Civil Judge, Class-1, Kasrawad, District - Mandleshwar. In this case, the respondents filed the power of the Advocate on 22.08.2017, but inspite of ample opportunities provided to the respondents, no reply to the application was filed and the trial court has proceeded ex-parte on 10.04.2019.

(5) That, on 29.01.2021, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/decree holder has preferred this revision on the ground that the order of trial court is wrong, illegal and against the settle principles of law. It is averred that trial court has ignored the conduct of the respondents that even after appearing in the case, the respondents neither opposed the application nor produced any evidence. It is stated that trial court erred in not considering the unrebutted evidence of the petitioner. The trial court in para 9 of the impugned order has mentioned that since one Bakaji (who was prese