IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 13.5.2009. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.43/2005 Shobhraj Vs. Ishwar Lal Sahu,Mayor Nagar Nigam, Kota & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri R.P.Vijay , for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Upadhyaya, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner decree-holder filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed against the respondent Nagar Nigam in respect of a Kiosk. It is alleged that the despite the decree for permanent injunction prohibiting the respondent not to dispossess or interfere with the possession of the decree holder the petitioner, on 10/11th April 2002 the respondent in their drive to remove the encroachments in the city removed the Kiosk of the petitioner and thereby dis-obeyed the decree for permanent injunction. Accordingly the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed by the decree holder for restoration of the Kiosk and compensation. In the reply to the application the respondent filed a reply wherein para 4 it was stated that the Judgment Debtor had not S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.43/2005 Shobhraj Vs.Ishwar Lal Sahu,Mayor Nagar Nigam, Kota & Ors. removed the Kiosk in question but the same was removed under the drive for removal of the encroachment carried out by the District Administration along with UIT, Kota and the officials of the PWD and the respondent had no role to play in the said operation or the drive and the Kiosk may have been removed at the instance of these authorities. In support of the aforesaid plea the respondent examined their witnesses K.L. Meena as well as Inder Singh who have deposed in support of the aforesaid plea. These witnesses were cross examined by the petitioner at length but nothing to show that the respondents were in any manner involved with the aforesaid drive has been substantiated. In the facts and circumstances therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference as no order adverse against the respondent can be passed as it is not proved that the respondents were guilty of having violated or dis-obeyed the decree dated 5.1.1999. In the facts and circumstances the revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS