HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2101 OF 2010 DATE:11-06-2010 BETWEEN G.Raja Rama Mohana Rao (died) per L.Rs. & Others. …Petitioners AND Smt. Jagadamba Johnston & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2101 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners-decree holders filed this revision seeking to revise the order of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry made in E.P.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.258 of 2000, dated 9.2.2010. Petitioners-decree holders filed the above E.P. for sending the judgment debtor-first respondent herein to civil prison for violating the injunction order passed in O.S.No.258 of 2000 contending that on decreeing the suit on 26.10.2005 granting permanent injunction restraining the judgment debtor-defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs-petitioners herein or not to dispossess them from the schedule property except under due process of law, the judgment debtor-first respondent herein is causing hurdles by locking the main entrance door leading to the suit schedule property and thereby causing obstruction to the petitioners herein of their right of access to the schedule property. The judgment debtor-first respondent herein locked two rooms of the schedule property by break opening from the inner-side and restrained the petitioners herein to utilize the same. Hence, the petition to send her to civil prison for violation of the injunction orders. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the E.P. holding that when the notice sent to the judgment debtor was returned with endorsement stating that she is residing at Hyderabad, the petitioners herein have not chosen to proceed with the matter nor took any steps to serve the judgment debtor. The counsel appearing for the petitioners himself filed a memo on 26.11.2009 stating that the judgment debtor is residing at Hyderabad and she used to give instructions to one Ramaswamy who is no other than nephew of judgment debtor and that he is acting on her behalf and though stated that the petitioners would take steps to implead the said Ramaswamy in the I.A., but did not choose to file any application to implead said Ramaswamy as a party to the proceedings. Further in the memo it is categorically mentioned that the judgment debtor has occupied two rooms on the eastern side of the leasehold premises by violating the injunction orders, but on perusal of the schedule appended to the decree, the dispute is found with regard to the southern side portion of the building, but not the eastern side two rooms. In that view of the matter, the lower court held that the petitioners have failed to establish that the judgment debtor obstructed them from enjoying the schedule property. No illegality is discernable with the impugned order so passed by the lower Court warranting correction by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when the petitioners themselves failed to serve the judgment debtor. Further when the petitioners themselves admitted that the judgment debtor-first respondent herein is residing at Hyderabad, her obstructing the petitioners from enjoying the property does not arise. Furthermore the property which is in occupation of the judgment debtor is different than the one covered by the suit schedule property in respect of which, the petitioners obtained injunction. In that view of the matter, I se no merit in the revision. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 11, 2010 Tsr.