This court dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an order quashing an execution petition for permanent injunction. The revision was rejected as there was no jurisdictional error by the executing court, which found the petitioner failed to establish interference.
Civil revision petition dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No. 575 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in EP No. 422 of 2008 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Khammam. The petitioner herein – the decree holder filed suit OS No. 769 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent – judgment debtors. The suit was decreed on 18.6.2007. On the premise that inspite of granting injunction against the respondents respondents/judgment debtors, they continued to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the decree holder, hence, EP No. 422 of 2008 has been moved.
It is appropriate to notice the suit schedule
property.
“SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
Land to an extent of Ac. 3.20 gts in Sy No. 410/E, 410/RU, 413/A in one single compact block situated at Kasirajugudem, village of Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District within the following boundaries.
East : Land of Addanki Yaladri West : Land of Bhukya Singh North : Land of Addanki Yaladri
South : Land of Addanki Bixam
After considering the entire material on record, the court below has come to a conclusion that the petitioner – decree holder could not establish that the respondent – judgment debtors have interfered either with his peaceful possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule land. Further, the necessary details such as the nature of interference, date and time of its occurrence are conspicuously missing. In those set of circumstances, the court below came to a conclusion that there were no grounds to allow the petition. Heard Sri Kowthuru Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents – judgment debtors. Except repeating the same contentions which have been canvassed, before the executing court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to establish as to the nature of interference caused by the respondent – judgment debtors and there is no specific averment anywhere in the petition with regard to the specific acts of interference with the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the 1st respondent – judgment debtor has contended that he owns land of Ac.7.09 gts within the same survey number. Therefore, the judgment debtors have resisted and protected the possession of the land held by them in their own right. Such an act will not amount to interference with the
possession and enjoyment of the decree holders’ right over the suit scheduled property. I have not found any jurisdictional error committed by the court below for exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
It is needless for me to observe that in case of any interference by the respondents-judgment debtors with the right of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the decree holder, it is always open to him to secure execution of the decree passed in their favour.
The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. But, however, without costs.
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
knk 25th November 2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the execution petition for lack of material regarding interference with possession.
Whether the decree holder proved that the respondents interfered with his peaceful possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Decree Holder
Judgment Debtors
Nooty Ramamohan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
