The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/ Decree Holders/Plaintiffs 4. A.Valya Naik, S/o Laxmi Naik, Age.45 years, Occ'Not known, R/o Opp SCCL School. 8-lnc ColonY.

5. A. Pithamber, S/o.Laxmi naik, Age. 40 years, Occ Not known, R/o Kothapalli V/o Dharmaram Mandal (Dbd).

6. Bukva Taurya, Wo Bhukya Lalya Nark, Age' 47 years, Occ Not Known' R/o.' Kothapalli V/o Dharmaram Mandal.

7. Bukva Linqamma @ Mitya, S/o Bheema, Age 62 years, Occ' SCCL Emfloyee, -R/o. Santhoshnagar, SJnc Colony'

8. Azmeera Neelamma, Wo. Late Pithamber, Age'53 years, Occ' Not Known' R:/o. Kothapalli V/o. Dharmaram Mandal. (Defendants No. 4 to 8 are not nec€ssary ,.n,..) ...*..oondeflts/Judgment Debtors/Defendants No-2 to 6 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cicumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou tmay be pleased to suspend order dated. 2710312025 in EA SR. No. 1787 ot 2O23 in EP No. I of 2023 in OS No. 176 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Senior ( ivil Judge, Peddapalli pending disposal of the present CRP in the interest of justic: and to pass- Counsel for the Petitione(s): Sri. Gummalla Bhasker Re Jdy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-3: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOI{,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISTON PETITION No.2597 of 2O2S ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order d.ated.27.O3.2O25 passed in EA SR No'1787 of 2023 in EP'No 9 of 2023 in OS.No. 176 of 2011 by the Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, wherein and whereby the triat Court allowed the EA seeking Po1ice aid'

2. Heard Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 3 despite service of notices. Therefore, the matter is disposed of basing on the material available on record' trarned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that 3. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed suit in OS'No' 176 of 2O11 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner as well as respondent Nos'4 to 8 in respect of land admeasuring 3O guntas 1n Sy.No.888 of PeddaPalli, H/o.Bommareddypally village of Dharmaram Mandal' and the vide Judgment ald Decree dated the same, resPondent Nos. 1 to 3 said suit was dismissed

28.02.2018. Aggrieved bY preferred apPeal in AS-No'23 of 2O2l on the file of Prl.District ) ) 2 Judge, Peddapalli, arrd the said appeal was allowed vide Judgment and Decree dated 2g.O6 .2023. He f...: -ther submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3/D.Hrs. have filed Exr: :ution petition rride EP.No.9 of 2023 for detention of Judgment I ebtors in civil prison for their willful disobedience of Judgmer t and Decree dated 28.06.2023 in AS.No.23 of 2O2L along with rn application vide EA SR No. I78Z of 2023 seeking police Aid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further su tmits that the trial Court, after conducting an enquiry in Ep.Nc. ) of 2023 and by recording the evidence of respondent No.l anrl the petitioner herein, dismissed the Ep. However, the trial Corr.t allowed the said EA SR No. IZ87 of 2023 without even nunr I :ring the said application and without issuing any notice trt _he petitioner herein. He further submits that the petitioner herein is not awane of the filing of said EA sR No.17g7 of 2o2i and was not afforded ax opportunit5r to contest the said appli: rtion. He a-lso submits that the trial Court committed an error i L allowing the application even rvithout numbering the same a.r. therefore, the same is Iiable to set aside.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would s _ 5mit that the Division Bench of this Court in D.Tutja Deui ,z nd. others v. 3 Mangam Shankor and anotherr has categorically held that once the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court has become final, when there is violation decree for perpetual injunction, the Court can order detention of the J.Dr' in civil prison and/or attachment of his property or both' however, in exercise of powers under Section 151 CPC, the Executing Court cannot direct the police to ensure obedience to the decree' Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the order dated

11.03.2025 passed in CRP.No.2165 of 2024.

6. A Perusal of record would disclose that respondent Nos' 1 to 3 l-rled EP for detention in civil prison of petitioner as weli as respondent Nos.4 to 8/Judgment Debtors for their willful disobedience of Judgment and Decree dated 28-06'2023 in AS.No.23 of 2021. The trial Court after conducting detailed enquiry and after examining respondent No.l/D'Hr' as PW' 1 and petitioner/J.Dr. as RW.1 dismissed the EP with an observation that respondent Nos. 1 to 3/D.Hrs. failed to prove that the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 8 have willfully disobeyed the Judgment and Decree passed in AS'No'23 of 2O2l dated 28.06.2023. However, the trial Court has allowed EA ') ' zo)qzyeo 732 (DB) 4 SR.No. 1787 of 2023 and granted police aid to res :ondent Nos. I to 3/D.Hrs. without even numbering the said rr rplication and without issuing notice and an opportunit5r to thr: petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to g/J.Drs to contest tlr: application. According to learned counsel for the petitioner , re J.Drs. were not aw.rre of filing of the said application (EA) an J therefore they are deprived from contesting the same.

7. lo D.Tu$a Deui,s case (cited supra), a Di.r sion Bench of this Court held that once the Judgment and De r ree passed by the trial Court has become final, and when ther: is violation of decree for perpetual injunction, the executing C r urt can order detention of J. Dr. to civil prison and/ or atta r hment of his property or both, however, in exercise of powers under Section 15 1 of CPC, the Executing Court cannot direct the police to ensure obedience to the decree.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumsta I ces, and ratio laid down in D.tutJa Deui,s case, this Court is of he considered opinion that the trial Court has committed an e;.; or in allowing the EA. SR evcn without numbering the said a : tlication, and further, without issuing notices to the petitioner ir rd respondent 5 Nos.4 to 8/J.Drs. thereby depriving them of an opportunity to defend themselves.

9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.O3.2O25 passed in EA.SR.No.1787 of 2023 in EP.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No. 176 of 2Ol1 by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, is set aside. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-K AMMAJI DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli One CC to Sri. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies. Y'R iAuK 4y HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 \: S lrt 16: oB ( C) (J I t'- )lr)f t 5l t ORDER CRP.No.2597 of 2025 ALLOWING OF THE CtVtL REVTSION pt:TtTtON. 1 x, \.