Contempt of court after passing injunction decree = when photos shows only repair of damaged wall – it can not be said the Jdr violated the injunction orders = These averments would disclose that even by the time, the suit was instituted, the house belonging to defendants was already demolished in order to construct a new house within their property. Photograph at page No. 41 filed along with this revision would show that joint wall was partially affected. Photographs filed by the plaintiff along with the vacate petition would disclose that by December, 2015, defendants constructed a new house and affected portion of the wall is also now filled up. These photographs are testimony to the fact that after the suit is decreed, no demolition is caused and in fact the small offending portion of the joint wall is now filled. =Though, the Court below elaborately discussed the rival contentions, without giving any findings on the rival contentions, allowed the Execution Petition and ordered for arrest. It is not stated how the defendants disobeyed the decree passed by the Court below, much less, such disobedience is not held as deliberate and willful. On the contrary, material on record would disclose that no damage whatsoever is caused to the schedule joint wall by the defendants after the decree was passed. =The order under revision is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed.

CRP 318 / 2016
CRPSR 1563 / 2016 CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
KOKA VEKATARAMAAPPA AANTHAPUR DIST & ANR VS KOKA GOVINDAPPA, ANANTHAPUR DIST
PET.ADV. : HAMSA DEVINENI RESP.ADV. : KUMMATHI VENKATESULU
SUBJECT: C.P.C. DISTRICT: ANANTAPUR

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016
Date :11-04-2016
Between :
Koka Venkataramanappa s/o Veerappa,
Aged 85 years, Occu: Agriculture,
r/o Nimbagallu Village, Uravakonda Mandal,
Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh and
another.
… Petitioners/judgment debtors
And
Koka Govindappa S/o Veerappa,
Aged about 74 years, Occu: Agriculture,
r/o.Bimbagallu village, Uravakonda Mandal,
Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh.
… Respondent / decree holder
The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016
ORAL ORDER:
Parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
2. This revision is filed against the order in E.P. No. 33 of 2015 in
O.S.
No. 62 of 2005 dated 06.01.2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil
Judge, Uravakonda. The suit is filed by sole respondent herein praying to
grant decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/revision
petitioners from disturbing the western joint wall of the plaint schedule
property. The suit was decreed granting permanent injunction regarding the
plaint schedule property with direction to the defendants not to interfere with
the peaceful possession and not to disturb the western joint wall.
3. Alleging that the judgment and decree is violated, plaintiff filed
Execution Petition. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants made
constructions violating the injunction order. The Court below held that the
defendants disobeyed the Court orders, allowed the petition and issued
arrest warrant against the defendants.
4. Learned counsel for defendants contended that Court below
exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing Execution petition. The defendants have
not violated the decree passed in the suit. No demolition took place after the
suit was decreed as alleged by the plaintiff. He further submitted that it is a
joint wall belonging to plaintiff and defendants and since the house owned by
the defendants was in dilapidated condition, defendants decided to
undertake construction of new house and accordingly old house was
demolished much prior to institution of suit and constructed a new house.
The wall being joint wall belonging to the plaintiff and defendants, defendants
are entitled to undertake construction on their side of the wall and by doing
so, it cannot be alleged that the defendants have violated the decree passed
against them. Learned counsel further contended that aggrieved by the exparte
decree, the defendants filed application to set aside the ex-parte decree
and the same is pending consideration by the Court below. The Court below
erred in disposing of the Execution Petition, without considering the petition
to set aside the
ex-parte decree.
5. By referring to the photograph filed at page 41 of the revision,
learned counsel for plaintiff contended that defendants sought to alter the suit
schedule property and, thus, violated the decree passed against them.
Defendants caused damage to the wall. He therefore, justifies the order
passed by the Court below.
6. The averments in para 3 of the plaint disclose that by the time suit
was instituted the defendants already demolished the house belonging to
them and started constructing a house in their open site. It was alleged that
in the process of undertaking construction, the defendants were affecting the
joint wall, which might endanger the entire structure of his property. It was
further averred that in spite of plaintiff requesting defendants not to disturb the
joint wall, as any disturbance to the joint wall would result in collapse of his
house, they did not heed to his request and proceeded to undertake
construction.
7. These averments would disclose that even by the time, the suit
was instituted, the house belonging to defendants was already demolished in
order to construct a new house within their property. Photograph at page No.
41 filed along with this revision would show that joint wall was partially
affected. Photographs filed by the plaintiff along with the vacate petition
would disclose that by December, 2015, defendants constructed a new
house and affected portion of the wall is also now filled up.
8. These photographs are testimony to the fact that after the suit is
decreed, no demolition is caused and in fact the small offending portion of the
joint wall is now filled.
9. The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen fundamental
right to freedom and liberty. When personal liberty of a person is in jeopardy,
the Court must be extra cautions and unless there is unimpeaching evidence
to show that his actions were deliberate, willful and his conduct offends the
authority of the Court, his liberty and freedom should not be curtailed.
10. Though, the Court below elaborately discussed the rival
contentions, without giving any findings on the rival contentions, allowed the
Execution Petition and ordered for arrest. It is not stated how the defendants
disobeyed the decree passed by the Court below, much less, such
disobedience is not held as deliberate and willful. On the contrary, material
on record would disclose that no damage whatsoever is caused to the
schedule joint wall by the defendants after the decree was passed.
11. The order under revision is unsustainable and it is accordingly set
aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. No costs. Having regard to the
same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
______________
DATE:11.4.2016 P NAVEEN RAO,J
TVK
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016
Date :11-04-2016
Tvk

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.