THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5633 of 2009 Dated:22.01.2010 Between: Sayila Durga Rao. …Petitioner and Saila Abaddam (Died), And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5633 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem, dated 17.07.2009, in E.P.No.13 of 2009 (old E.P.No.66 of 2004), whereby and whereunder the said E.P was dismissed, he filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner filed O.S.No.144 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, for injunction. The same was decreed. He then filed E.P.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The same was transferred and renumbered as E.P.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem. The E.P was originally filed against Sayila Abaddam and he died. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein were added as judgment debtors. The E.P was opposed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 raising objection as to maintainability on the ground that they are not parties to the suit for injunction. The Court below framed the point as to whether E.P is maintainable against judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased first judgment debtor and answered the point against the petitioner. Insofar as the other point is concerned, the Court below came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not allow the petitioner to construct compound wall on the suit schedule property. In this Civil Revision Petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are claiming right through deceased first judgment debtor, and therefore, E.P under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is maintainable against them. A perusal of Order XXI Rule 32 (1) and (2) of CPC would show that the party against whom the decree for an injunction is passed can be detained in civil prison or the property can be attached if there is a disobedience of the decree. In contradiction with these provisions, under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC if any person who disobeys the interim injunction can be detained in civil prison not exceeding three months. Therefore, it is very clear that when there is a decree of injunction in favour of the decree holder he can file an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC only if the disobedience is by the judgment debtor or his legal heirs. For a better appreciation, Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC are extracted hereunder. Order XXI Rule 32 Order XXXIX Rule 2A 32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction:- (1) Where t h e party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where t h e party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (emphasis supplied) 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction:- (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release (2) N o attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay t he balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. Furthermore, as rightly observed by the Court below, after the demise of judgment debtor the petitioner did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives on record. Therefore, the E.P filed by him against respondent Nos.2 to 4 is clearly not maintainable. The Civil Revision Petition has no merit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.01.2010 vs