IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTHIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3525 of 2010 BETWEEN Rengineni Krishna Mohan Naidu and another. ... PETITIONERS AND Vontela Markondaiah. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. P. GANGARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. SYED GHOUSE BASHA The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners are the judgment debtors, who suffered an order of the executing Court in E.P.No.25 of 2004 dated 04.08.2010, which is impugned herein. By the said order, the executing Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners/judgment debtors had violated the injunction decree passed in favour of the respondent/decree holder in O.S.No.62 of 1992 dated 24.09.1997. 2. While the said decree granted a permanent injunction in favour of the respondent, the petitioners/judgment debtors are alleged to have highhandedly evicted the respondent/decree holder on 25.06.2011 by using JCB machine and physical force. The respondent/decree holder, therefore, filed EP.No.25 of 2004 before the executing Court to punish the respondents for disobedience of the said decree. The respondent/decree holder led evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. The petitioners were, however, set ex parte and after considering the evidence on record, the Court below passed the impugned order finding the petitioners guilty of deliberately violating the decree and directed that they should be sent to civil prison for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in addition to directing the petitioners to remove the obstructions and restore the possession to the respondent/decree holder. Against the said order, this revision is preferred. 3. Heard Mr. P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, who pointed out that there is no finding in the impugned order necessary to reach the final conclusion. He relied upon the following decisions: INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. RANJAN CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER[1]; CHHOTU RAM v. URVASHI GULTAI AND ANOTHER[2] and KOYA RANGA REDDY v. KOYA NARANA REDDY[3]. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the EP was posted to 26.07.2010 for evidence of the petitioners/judgment debtors and on that day, as they were called absent and counsel also was not present, they were set ex parte. The EP was thereafter heard on 02.08.2010 and the impugned order was passed on 04.08.2010 and thereby, the petitioners are deprived of sufficient opportunity to lead evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that the respondent’s evidence was led from February to June by examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and there was ample time to the petitioners to lead evidence but they have deliberately chosen not to lead evidence. He also points out to several other circumstances explaining the delay in approaching the Court, after the respondent was dispossessed. However, those subsequent events are not on record. 6. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners did not have sufficient opportunity and they were set ex parte only on 26.07.2010 when they could not lead evidence on that day, appears justified. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the version of the respondent/decree holder that he was highhandedly dispossessed and thrown out from his own house in spite of the injunction decree passed in his favour also needs to be kept in mind while balancing the equities. 7. In that view of the matter, while giving one opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore EP.No.25 of 2004 to the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri, with a further direction to the executing Court that the petitioners be granted opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case together with rebuttal evidence, if any, of the respondent and thereafter, hear and decide the EP and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, as a condition precedent for leading evidence in the EP, the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the credit of E.P.No.25 of 2004 before the executing Court within a period of six (6) weeks from today and on such deposit, the executing Court shall fix the date of hearing and dispose of the EP in terms of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall abide the result of the final orders of the executing Court. The executing Court shall endeavour to hear and dispose of the execution petition within three (3) months from the date it fixes for recording of the evidence of the petitioners. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 30, 2011 DSK [1] (1999) 2 SCC 537 [2] (2001) 7 SCC 530 [3] 2007 (3) ALT 689