THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4246 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2011 in E.P.No.45 of 2005 in O.P.No.1651 of 1989 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The said E.P. filed by the respondents herein was ordered directing that the 1st judgment-debtor be arrested and detained in civil prison for the alleged violation of the decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 8 herein filed the suit- O.S.No.1651 of 1989 against the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and the 9th respondent herein for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed on 09.06.1996, granting the relief of permanent injunction in respect of 444 sq.yards of site in Sy.No.1418 of Choppadandi village. Against the said judgment and decree, defendants filed A.S.No.26 of 1996 and subsequently the same was dismissed as not pressed. Respondents 1 to 8 filed E.P.No.45 of 2005 seeking arrest of the Executive Officer of the 1st judgment-debtor-Gram Panchayat on the ground that the panchayat violated the order of injunction by making attempts to lay a road across the said site. Judgment-debtor opposed the E.P. on the ground that no such attempt was ever made by the Gram Panchayat. 4. During the enquiry before the Execution Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the decree- holder and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the judgment-debtors. No document was marked on either side. The evidence of R.W.1 was eschewed. 5. When the suit was filed in 1984, the Gram Panchayat was represented by the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer was accordingly impleaded as first defendant. It is not disputed that subsequently in December, 2001, Government issued G.O.No.369, whereunder the Executive Officer ceased to represent the Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Secretaries were appointed in his place. Now that the Execution Petition is filed in the year, 2005, the 1st judgment-debtor is still shown as Executive Officer, though the said office ceased to exist from December, 2001. The Panchayat Secretary against whose person the decree-holders are seeking to proceed against, is not a party to the suit or to the Execution Petition. It is not a case where the relief in the Execution Petition is sought against the institution of Gram Panchayat in which case the institution can be shown as represented by the person or authority in office on that day. It is a case where the relief in the E.P. is sought against the person, seeking arrest of the individual. The decree-holders are not seeking arrest of the Panchayat Secretary though he is not impleaded and the trial Court has ordered the same ignoring the fact that the relief sought is against the person, but not against the institution. The impugned order, directing the arrest of the Panchayat Secretary, who is not named as a party to the execution proceedings, is clearly unsustainable. 6. That apart, the allegation of the decree-holders that the Gram Panchayat is trying to lay a road across the suit site remains totally baseless and unsubstantiated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such proposal to lay a road and no such resolution is passed by the panchayat approving the proposal and no such work is also sanctioned or work order issued and the alleged violation is only a figment of imagination. 8. The decree-holders have not produced any material to show that there was any such attempt made by the Gram Panchayat to lay a road across the suit site. Even according to the decree-holders, the suit site is closed by a compound wall on the four sides. It is not the allegation of the decree-holders that there was any attempt to demolish any portion of the compound wall in the process of laying the alleged road. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is vague and does not disclose any details as to the nature and extent of the alleged violation or the acts of omission or commission in the process of the alleged formation of the road. P.W.1 stated that on 04.03.2005 the 1st judgment-debtor came to the spot along with his employees and tried to form a road. P.W.2 stated that about two years ago the Executive Officer came to the suit land and tried to lay the road. If really there was any such attempt to lay a road by the Gram Panchayat with the public funds, there would certainly be a record sanctioning the said work and no such record is sought to be filed or summoned by the decree-holders. In the absence of any material to show that the judgment-debtors have made attempts to lay a road across the suit site, no inference of violation of the decree of injunction can be drawn based merely on the vague evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 9. The impugned order, directing arrest of the petitioner- judgment-debtor, is based on no legally acceptable evidence and the decree-holders failed to establish that the violation of the decree complained of has in fact taken place. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 14th October, 2011. Tsy