IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.713 of 2011 Between: Koya Narayana Reddy & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Koya Ranga Reddy & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.713 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and Sri Gade Venkat Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, in E.P.No.104 of 2002 in O.S.No.268 of 1997, on its file on 18.12.2010, directing issuance of a warrant of arrest of the judgment debtors 1 to 4 and their detention in civil prison for a period of three months subject to the deposit of subsistence allowance of Rs.3,000/- for each of the judgment debtors 1 to 4 by the decree holders within one month from the date of passing of the order. 3. The Execution Petition was filed on the ground that the decree passed in O.S.No.268 of 1997, dated 02.04.1999, was violated by the judgment debtors 1 to 4 who were the revision petitioners herein. The judgments debtors 1 to 4 contended that they never disobeyed the decree and never tried to dispossess the decree holders from the schedule lands. They claimed that the judgments debtors 2 and 3 are co-employees and the 4th judgment debtor is a student and the three of them were not even present in the village on the date of the alleged violation of the decree. They also invited attention to O.S.No.309 of 2001 filed by them for grant of a perpetual injunction against the decree holders and during the course of enquiry into the Execution Petition, P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A-1 and B-1 to B-3 were marked. 4. The Executing Court, in the impugned order, found that the decree under execution had become final and it disbelieved the claim of the judgment debtors about their absence from the village on the date of the alleged violation. It concluded that on 25.06.2002, the judgment debtors were present in the village and tried to interfere and dispossess the decree holders from the Execution Petition schedule lands. Consequently, the order in question. 5. The revision petitioners challenged the said order herein contending that the burden of proof on the decree holders about interference with the lands in violation of the decree of the Court was not discharged and the public documents, Exs.B-1 and B-2-Attendance Certificates, could not have been disbelieved by the Executing Court which would show attendance of the concerned judgment debtors elsewhere on the alleged date of violation. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.309 of 2001 in Ex.B-3 was also not properly appreciated by the Executing Court and even in the absence of proof of the allegations by the mere interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Executing Court directed the arrest and detention which is an extreme step. 6. At the time of notice before admission to respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted in C.R.P.M.P.No.1020 of 2011 that the revision petitioners never disobeyed the decree and have no intention of disobeying the decree at any point of time as specifically pleaded by them before the Executing Court also. The learned counsel undertook, on instructions on behalf of the revision petitioners, that the revision petitioners 1 to 3 shall not in any manner, directly or indirectly, disobey or attempt to disobey the decree in question. In view of the said submission, interim suspension of the impugned order was granted on 18.03.2011. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders submitted herein that the decree holders are not interested in any vindictive arrest and imprisonment of the revision petitioners and if they stand by their commitment not to directly or indirectly disobey or attempt to disobey the decree in question, the respondents have no objection for the order under revision being set aside. 8. The fact that the decree in O.S.No.268 of 1997 had become final is not in dispute. It also cannot be in dispute that the revision petitioners herein had the judgment and decree in their favour in O.S.No.309 of 2001 in respect of the some other subject matter against the decree holders in the present dispute. Both the parties have the legal right to seek enforcement of the decrees in their respective favour and the judgment debtors in the respective decrees are bound to obey the decrees of the Civil Court. When the revision petitioners stated before the Executing Court and herein also that they never disobeyed the decree and never had the intention of disobeying the decree, an extreme step of ordering arrest and detention in civil prison need not have been ordered on a mere probability of all the judgment debtors being present in the village on the date of the alleged incident. There are sufficient circumstances to create a doubt about the conclusions of the Executing Court in the light of Exs.B-1 and B-2-Attendance Certificates issued by the Public Servants concerned which would improbablise the presence of the respective judgment debtors on the alleged date of violation. However, there is no need to indulge in any deep probe into the questions in controversy in view of the consensus between the parties that there shall not be any disobedience of the decree herein after. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the right of the revision petitioners to execute and enforce the decree in O.S.No.309 of 2001 in their favour, but no expression need be made on such a right herein as the same is not the subject matter of adjudication of this revision petition. In so far as the present revision petition is concerned, the harshness in the order under revision can be softened by recording the undertaking of the revision petitioners before this Court. 9. Accordingly, the undertaking given by the revision petitioners through their learned counsel not to directly or indirectly disobey or attempt to disobey the decree in question shall stand recorded and in the light of the same, the impugned order, dated 18.12.2010, in E.P.No.104 in O.S.No.268 of 1997, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, is set aside. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. This order is without prejudice to the rights of both parties either to execute the decree in question herein in case such a necessity arises in future or to execute the decree in O.S.No.309 of 2001 if such a necessity arises for the revision petitioners in future. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.713 of 2011 Date: 18th April, 2011 KL