THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5301 of 2015

ORAL ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 21.09.2015 passed in E.P.No.203 of 2014 in O.S.No.1461 of 2008 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the present civil revision petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holder filed a suit, O.S.No.1461 of 2008, before the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, seeking a perpetual injunction against Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 2, restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.12.2011. Despite the decree, the judgment debtors allegedly obstructed the construction of a compound wall on 18.01.2013, prompting the decree holder to file an Execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, requesting the arrest of the judgment debtors on grounds of willful disobedience. In support of the petition, the decree holder examined two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2), asserting that the judgment debtors were interfering with the property in direct violation of the court order.

3. The judgment debtors filed a counter alleging that the decree holder was not the rightful owner of the entire property. They contended that the house bearing No.6-1-22 measured only about 230 square yards, not the 440 square yards claimed by the decree holder, and originally belonged to one Muthaiah, their father. According to them, Muthaiah had two sons, and the decree holder, being the younger, had unlawfully taken possession of the property, excluding the elder son Satyanarayana. They further stated that they resided in the existing structure, which included partially collapsed rooms, and that the injunction suit was a ploy to grab their rightful share. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the execution petition, insisting that the decree was obtained fraudulently and without proper participation in the original suit.

4. After examining the evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the petition under Order 21 Rule 32(1), directing attachment of the judgment debtors’ properties as an enforcement mechanism holding that although the judgment debtors had filed a written statement in the original suit, they did not participate in the trial and had failed to file an appeal against the ex parte decree. Further, the trial Court observed that the judgment debtors' contentions in the execution proceedings merely reiterated the pleas raised earlier but lacked any supporting oral or documentary proof. The trial Court found that the evidence of the decree holder (PW-1 and PW-2) was credible, whereas the testimony of RW-1 (Judgment Debtor No.1) admitted the lack of appeal or fresh evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors.

5. Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is legally unsustainable and factually flawed, and thus deserves to be set aside and that the order suffers from serious legal infirmities, violates principles of natural justice, and disregards established norms of evidence and procedure under Order 21 Rule 32(1) CPC. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in relying on the contradictory testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, especially concerning the alleged incident of interference dated 13.02.2015, which lacks relevance and consistency. The decree holder (PW-1) never mentioned this incident either in his evidence affidavit or during cross- examination, nor was any supplemental affidavit filed. Additionally, the date mentioned by PW-1 differs from that of PW-2, further weakening the credibility of the allegations.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no police complaint or documenta