THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4976 of 2010 January 20, 2011 Between: Daddanala Venkatramana, S/o.Gangulappa And others ...Petitioners AND Yenamala Gangul Reddy, S/o.Maram @ Marappa Reddy ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4976 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent’s suit being O.S.No.361 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for permanent injunction was decreed on 02.9.2007. The petitioners’ appeal being A.S.No.117 of 2002 was also dismissed on 24.3.2008 by the the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The petitioners – Judgment Debtors (J.Drs) – statedly preferred second appeal by availing legal aid from the Legal Services Authority. In the mean while, the Decree Holder (D.Hr) instituted O.E.P.No.86 of 2008 for arrest of J.Drs for disobeying the decree. The petitioners herein opposed the E.P. denying the allegation that they entered the suit schedule property. During the enquiry, D.Hr examined two witnesses. The first petitioner herein deposed as R.W.1 besides examining R.W.2. Exs.D1 and D2 – relevant portions in the certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 in S.T.C.No.159 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle; and Ex.X1 were marked. The Court below relied on Ex.X1 and held against the J.Drs while allowing the E.P. The order dated 02.8.2011 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, is challenged in this revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Counsel for the petitioners/J.Drs submits that in view of pendency of the second appeal, the Court ought not to have allowed the application for arrest of the J.Drs. He would urge that the finding recorded by the Court below is erroneous and there is no evidence in proof of the allegation of the D.Hr that the J.Drs interfered with agricultural operations taken up by the D.Hr. The specific allegation of the respondent was that on 04.6.2008, when he went to the suit schedule property, the petitioners high- handedly prevented them from ploughing of the land by unyoking the bulls. In Exs.D1 and D2 – the Court below found; R.W.1 clearly stated that he was in enjoyment of the property and that he and his mother did not allow the plaintiff to proceed with agricultural operations in suit schedule property. This evidence probablises the case of the D.Hr and the plea of J.Drs that D.Hr failed to conclusively prove the allegations, is farfetched. The civil revision petition does not merit any consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) January 20, 2011 YS