THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2540 OF 2010 DATED: 03-09-2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 12-08-2009, in E.P.No.135 of 2002 in O.S.No.151 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein the petitioners herein are directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents on or before 30-09-2009. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration representing the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents herein filed O.S.No.151 of 1996 for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the respondents’ possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Petitioners herein contested the suit. After full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed granting a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the respondents herein. Respondents herein filed E.P.No.155 of 2002 alleging that the petitioners- judgment-debtors have violated the decree for permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.151 of 1996. According to them, petitioners herein caused damage to the schedule property by erecting the road and also by constructing channels and demolishing the compound wall and felling the trees. Petitioners herein filed a counter contending that they did not cut the trees and some contractor laid a road and hence, they cannot be held liable. 4. Before the Executing Court, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked and R.W.1 was examined. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Executing Court held that the removal of bund and laying of road over the decree-holder’s land is clear from the report of the Advocate-Commissioner and directed the judgment-debtors to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- which was assessed by the Advocate- Commissioner i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards trees and Rs.15,000/- for the bund. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment- debtors. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the alleged acts of violation were on the part of the contractor and not by the department officials. It is to be noted that the contractor was acting only on behalf of the department. The department officials, the petitioners herein, cannot therefore seek to disown their responsibility for the damage caused in the course of execution of the work, which was entrusted by them to the contractor. Further, no steps were taken by the petitioners to get the contractor impleaded in the execution proceedings. 7. The said contractor is not a party to the suit or to the Execution Petition. When that is so, it is not open for the petitioners now to contend that they are not liable to pay the amount and the respondents-decree-holders, if at all, should recover the amount from the contractor, who is a third party to the proceedings. The revision petitioners are certainly liable for the acts of omission or commission on the part of the contractor who was carrying out the work entrusted by the department. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Executing Court has awarded the amount based on the report of the Advocate- Commissioner, who estimated the value of the damage caused in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The Advocate- Commissioner is also examined as P.W.5 and his testimony regarding the nature and extent of the damage and the assessment of damages is not discredited in any manner. The Execution Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W.5 and his report while adopting the assessment of damages made by the Advocate- Commissioner in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Execution Court, awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents-decree-holders. The impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 25-06-2010 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 03rd September, 2010. Tsy