THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 2325 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.425 of 1983 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the respondents for the reliefs of declaration of their right of passage over the suit schedule property, perpetual injunction against the respondents from interfering with their land to use the passage and mandatory injunction for removal of the manure heaps and other obstructions caused by them. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18.08.1994. Since the respondents did not take any steps vis-à-vis the decree, it has become final. The petitioners filed an application before the trial Court under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. with a prayer to commit the respondents to civil prison, alleging that they started stocking manure heaps on the suit schedule property and thereby, obstructing the passage. The same was numbered as E.A.No.206 of 2005. The respondents opposed the E.A. by raising an objection as to its form and limitation. So far as the allegation as to the stocking of manure in the suit schedule property is concerned, the respondents pleaded that they have been doing it for the past several years and the petitioners do not have any right to obstruct it. The trial Court dismissed the E.A. through order, dated 14.02.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The decree obtained by the petitioners is in respect of three reliefs viz., declaration as to their right to use the property, perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their land to use the passage, mandatory injunction for removal of heaps. In case, the respondents have any grievance against the decree, they ought to have preferred appeal or initiate other steps. The petitioners filed an application before the trial Court by invoking Rule 32 of Order 21 read with Section 151 C.P.C. It is true that they ought to have filed an E.P. in the prescribed form. The trial Court however did not find any defect in the petition and entertained it. At least when the respondents raised an objection as to the form of the petition, the trial Court ought to have taken steps. The respondents also did not press their objection as to the form, beyond a point. In their counter, the respondents have admitted the stocking of manure but have tried to justify it on the ground that it was being done for the past several years. Once there was an admission on the part of the respondents of the allegation made by the petitioner that manure was being stocked in the suit schedule property, virtually there did not exist any necessity to record evidence. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 was recorded and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were taken on record. The report and the plan of the commissioner were taken on record as Exs.C.1 and C.2. The petitioners invoked the correct provision of law and made the proper prayer. The application remained on the file of the Court for six years, before it was dismissed. The trial Court made an observation to the effect that the petitioners did not make out a prima facie case, as regards the violation of perpetual injunction. As observed in the previous paragraphs, when the respondents categorically stated that they are stocking the manure on the suit schedule site, the finding itself was perverse. I n Jay Dayal vs. Krishna Lal Garg[1], the Supreme Court held that once a decree for perpetual injunction or mandatory injunction has become final, the executing Court cannot refuse to enforce the same by exercising power under Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and E.A.No.206 of 2005 shall stand allowed as prayed for. It is however directed that in case, the respondents remove the heaps stocked on the suit schedule property, if they are existing now, and do not obstruct the use of the passage by the petitioners, no steps shall be taken against them. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 2325 of 2011 Date: 13.10.2011 JSU [1] (1996) 11 SCC 588