THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1305 and 3514 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: As much as both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of order, dated 20.12.2010 passed in E.P.No.153 of 2009 in O.S.No.792 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the parties as arrayed in Civil Revision Petition No.1305 of 2011. The respondents filed O.S.No.792 of 1997 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the petitioners, claiming perpetual injunction with regard to land admeasuring Acs.10.35 guntas, covered by Survey Nos.284, 285, 294, 295, 298 and 299, situated at Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda Rural Mandal, Warangal District. Though total extent of land is mentioned in the suit schedule property as Acs.10.35 guntas, there is no mention with regard to the separate extent of the land covered by Survey Nos.284 and 285, which are being claimed by the respondents. The said suit was decreed ex parte, granting injunction. It is to be noticed that Survey Nos.284 and 285 cover land admeasuring Ac.1.33 guntas and Ac.1.23 guntas, respectively, in total Acs.3.16 guntas, situated at Madikonda Village, Hamakonda Mandal, Warangal District, and that the second petitioner filed O.S.No.527 of 2009 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of the land covered by the said two Survey Numbers, and obtained status quo order on 29.09.2009 in I.A.No.440 of 2009. Alleging that the petitioners have violated perpetual injunction orders passed by the Court below on 26.02.1999, the respondents filed E.P.No.153 of 2009 seeking to send the petitioners to the prison for violation of the perpetual injunction orders. The petitioners have filed counter-affidavit contesting the E.P. proceedings. In the said E.P., on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked, and on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, the first petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. The Court below, in the impugned order, by recording a finding that in view of the pleadings on record, the respondents have not proved the violation of the injunction orders passed in O.S.No.792 of 1997, by any cogent evidence, held that the petitioners cannot be sent to the civil prison as a matter of course and dismissed the E.P. But, however, the Court below in the same order, issued directions to the police to render police aid to the respondents for implementation of orders passed in O.S.No.792 of 1997. To the extent of issuance of directions to the police, the petitioners have filed Civil Revision Petition No.1305 of 2011 and to the extent of order rejecting the E.P. for sending the petitioners to the civil prison, the respondents have filed Civil Revision Petition No.3514 of 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and I have perused a copy of the impugned order and also a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.792 of 1997. A perusal of the copy of plaint in O.S.No.792 of 2007 indicates that though the respondents have mentioned all the survey numbers including Survey Nos.284 and 285, no separate extents are given in the schedule. It is to be noticed that in E.P.No.153 of 2009 filed under Order XX1 Rules 32 and 37 CPC, though the Court below on perusing oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, passed the impugned order by recording a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs had not proved the violation of the injunction orders passed in O.S.No.792 of 1997, but it curiously, issued directions to the police for grant of police-aid to the respondents for implementation of orders obtained in Ex.P.2. It is also to be noticed that with regard to very same properties, the second petitioner filed O.S.No.527 of 2009 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, and there is also an order of status quo passed by the Court below on 29.09.2009 in I.A.No.440 of 2009 and it is in force. For the aforesaid reasons, as much as the status quo order passed in O.S.No.527 of 2009 filed by the second petitioner is in force and as the said suit is pending, this Court is of the view that the Court below in the impugned order, ought not to have issued directions to the police for grant of police aid for implementation of decree in O.S.No.792 of 1997, while holding that the respondents have not proved violation of the decree passed therein. As O.S.No.527 of 2009 filed by the second petitioner is declaratory in nature and is pending consideration, it is open for the respondents to seek vacation of status quo order, dated 29.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.440 of 2009 in O.S.No.527 of 2009, if they are in possession. In that view of the matter, the impugned order to the extent of issuance of directions to the police, Madikonda, for implementation of judgment and decree in O.S.No.792 of 1997 is set aside and thereby, Civil Revision Petition No.1305 of 2011 is allowed. At the same time, I do not find any ground to grant relief to the respondents, as such, Civil Revision Petition No.3514 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni