HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3805 of 2006 Date: October 19, 2011 Between: 1. Ayanampudi China Sambaiah & another … Petitioners and 1. Vuyyuru Hymavathi & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3805 of 2006 O R D E R: The judgment debtors in E.P. No.38 of 2004 are aggrieved by the order of arrest passed by the executing court under the impugned order. 2. Heard the learned on either side. 3. A reading of the impugned order shows that there is a decree for permanent injunction granted in favour of the respondent in O.S. No.239 of 1990. The said decree relates to Ac.0.03 cents of house site with a house therein and as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Alleging that since the attempt of respondent to construct a compound wall in consonance with the decree is objected to by the petitioners-judgment debtors, the order of arrest was sought for by the respondent in the E.P. No.38 of 2004. The respondent-decree holder examined herself as P.W.1, whereas the first judgment debtor- petitioner No.1 was examined as R.W.1. 4. I have seen the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and I am of the view that neither the decree holder has stated about the alleged obstruction with any details nor it is supported by any documents, especially, when R.W.1 categorically denied any interference with the plaint schedule land over which the respondent-decree holder has a perpetual injunction decree. R.W.1 even denied that P.W.1 is making any constructions. The court below, however, ordered arrest of the petitioners-judgment debtors merely after discussing the decree and contentions of either side. There is no finding recorded by the executing court as to whether there is any material to substantiate that the petitioners-judgment debtors are obstructing the decree holder. The contention of the decree holder that she is constructing a compound wall is also not substantiated and no details of the alleged obstruction are established by the decree holder either by leading any reliable oral evidence or by other means. Thus, without recording any finding on the crucial aspect as to whether there is any violation of the decree by the petitioners-judgment debtors, merely on the ground that the judgment debtors are trying to obstruct the construction of compound wall, warrant of arrest was issued against the first and the second judgment debtors. The said order being clearly unsustainable, there is no option but to set aside the same. 5. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 11.7.2006 passed in E.P. No.38 of 2004 in O.S. No.239 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. However, since the decree which has attained finality is required to be implemented as well the respondent-decree holder shall be at liberty to adduce such further evidence, if advised, in support of the E.P. and on such evidence adduced by the decree holder, the petitioners- judgment debtors shall also be entitled to lead rebuttal evidence. The court below therefore shall restore the E.P. to its file, give liberty to both sides to lead additional evidence if any and consider and pass appropriate orders in E.P. No.38 of 2004 afresh. No costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: October 19, 2011. BSB