THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2007 DATED: 24-06-2010 Between: Gorava Hanumanthu ( died) & 8 others. ..... PETITIONERS-JUDGEMENT-DEBTORS And Kuruva Karappa. .....RESPONDENT- DECREE-HOLDER ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04-12-2006, in E.P.No.92 of 2004 in O.S.No.48 of 1991 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, wherein the said petition filed by the respondent-decree-holder for execution of the decree of permanent injunction was allowed and arrest of the judgment-debtors 3 to 9 was ordered. 2. None appears for the petitioners-judgment-debtors and no representation is made on their behalf. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder. Perused the record. 3. Respondent-decree-holder filed O.S.No.48 of 1991 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners- judgment-debtors from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land. The suit was decreed on 24-11-1992, granting permanent injunction as prayed for. Subsequently, respondent- decree-holder filed E.P.No.92 of 2004 alleging that the judgment-debtors have disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction by trying to encroach upon the schedule land. 4. Judgment-debtors filed a counter in the E.P. and contested the same. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the decree-holder and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the judgment-debtors. 5. Judgment-debtors claim that they have been cultivating the land by virtue of settlement of a dispute. Subsequent to the decree by way of panchayat, decree- holder denied any such mediation. Judgment-debtors examined R.W.2, who is said to be a panchayatdar, but he categorically admitted that he does not know anything about the panchayat. On proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, the executing Court recorded a finding to the effect that the plea of the judgment-debtors pertaining to the alleged mediation was not established. As the judgment-debtors were found to be cultivating the land and they failed to establish the circumstances under which they entered upon the land, their cultivation was found to be in violation of the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the respondent-decree-holder. The executing Court, therefore, granted the relief prayed for by holding that the judgment-debtors have wilfully disobeyed the decree of permanent injunction granted against them and in favour of the decree-holder. The impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 03-07-2007 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th July, 2010. Tsy