THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3279 of 2011 ORDER: The judgment debtors in E.P.No.118 of 2010 in O.S.No.1734 of 2006, on the file of the III-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, filed this revision, assailing the orders of the execution Court dated 14.06.2011. The decree holders filed the said execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC against three judgment debtors. On behalf of the decree holders, PWs.1 and 2 were examined; and on behalf of the judgment debtors, RW1 was examined. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked before the execution Court. The learned execution Judge considered that the decree holders made out their case and ordered for issuance of warrant under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC against judgment debtors 1 to 3. Sri P. Madhusudan Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors, contended that the General Power of Attorney (hereinafter, GPA) holder filed the execution petition without permission under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice and, that therefore, the execution petition is not maintainable. He further contended that the decree holders have not been in possession of the plaint schedule property and that ordering the arrest of the judgment debtors for interfering with the possession of the decree holders, therefore, is not sustainable. Smt. Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the decree holders, contended that the decree holders indeed are in possession of the plaint schedule property and that when the judgment debtors have been interfering with the cultivation by the decree holders, the decree holders had no alternative but to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The suit was laid by the decree holders. The judgment debtors remained ex parte in the suit. The suit was in respect of Ac.37.52 cents in Survey No.2372, Sarvepalli Bit No.2, N.V.Kandriga village. The decree holders marked Exs. A.1 to A.12 before the trial Court with regard to proof of their title and possession of the disputed property. The trial Court granted an ex parte decree in favour of the decree holders on 23.03.2007. Contending that the judgment debtors have been interfering with the cultivation attempted by the decree holders, the decree holders laid E.P.No.118 of 2010 through their GPA holder. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for judgment debtors, permission envisaged by Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice was not obtained before the GPA holder laid the execution petition. Notices were served upon the judgment debtors in the execution petition. The judgment debtors filed counter and contested the execution petition. It may be noticed that the judgment debtors have not taken the plea that the execution petition is not maintainable, as permission under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice was not obtained by the GPA holder, before filing E.P.No.118 of 2010. I will refer to this aspect a little later again. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment debtors that the decree holders have not been in possession of the property in question and that the judgment debtors interfering with possession of the decree holders, therefore, does not arise. He placed reliance upon the final report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Venkatachalam Police Station, Nellore District, in support of his contention. A complaint was lodged on 09.12.2010 on behalf of the decree holders stating that the judgment debtors have been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the decree holders over Ac.37.52 cents of land covered by O.S.No.1734 of 2006. The investigating officer recorded the evidence of five witnesses. He concluded that the land belonged to government as CJFS land and that the same was distributed to landless poor belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Consequently, the investigating officer considered that the decree holders have no title and no possession over the disputed property and, accordingly, referred the FIR. I am afraid that the execution Court cannot go beyond the decree. It applies with equal vehemence to police officials as well. Rightly or wrongly, it was held by the Court in O.S.No.1734 of 2006 that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the plaint schedule property, and that they were entitled to a perpetual injunction against the judgment debtors. The judgment in O.S.No.1734 of 2006 has become final. I am afraid that the judgment debtors, therefore, cannot question the same and cannot raise the contention that the plaintiffs/decree holders have not been in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the judgment debtors possession over the same would not be tantamount to interference with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property where PW1, who is the GPA holder, and PW2, who is the Watchman of the property, deposed that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property. Therefore, possession of the plaintiffs is prima facie made out. The learned counsel for the decree holders have also drawn my attention to the cross examination of the 1st judgment debtor as RW1. The 1st judgment debtor/RW1 in the chief affidavit stated that the decree holders were not in possession of the disputed property. He, however, admitted in the cross-examination that the decree holders have been in possession of the disputed property. Thus, even the judgment debtors admitted the possession of the decree holders over the plaint schedule property through their oral evidence. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors contended that the judgment debtors never interfered with the agricultural operations of the decree holders. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is that the judgment debtors have been interfering with the agricultural operations of the decree holders having been assisted by a mob of 10 to 15 persons. I consider that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is sufficient to conclude that the judgment debtors have been interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, lest there should not have been any need for the decree holders to file the execution petition. I, accordingly, consider that the decree holders have established that the judgment debtors have been interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The decree holders are entitled to execute the decree under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. I may now refer to the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment debtors that the GPA holder of the decree holders filed this execution petition without permission under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice. It may be noticed that this plea has not been taken by the judgment debtors in the execution petition. I therefore, consider that the judgment debtors are shut off from raising such a plea at the revisional stage. This plea of the judgment debtors, consequently, is rejected. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors also contended that the evidence of PW1 who is the GPA holder cannot be accepted on the ground that a GPA holder cannot substitute the principal for the purpose of evidence. He placed reliance upon judgment delivered in MANKAUR v. HARTAR SINGH SANGA[1]. In that case, the Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision in JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI V. INDUSIND BANK LTD[2], and held that a GPA holder cannot give evidence on behalf of the principal except in respect of the acts resorted to by the GPA holder. It is the case of PW1 that he has been in possession of the plaint schedule property on behalf of the principals-decree holders. I therefore, consider that the evidence of PW1 cannot be brushed aside in view of this decision of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the present circumstances where the GPA has been in possession of the property, albeit, on behalf of the decree holders. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and in view of the admission of RW1, the case of the decree holders is proved. The arrest warrant issued by the decreed holders is, consequently, sustainable. There is no error apparent in the order under revision. This revision is found to be devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR 10th November, 2011 KSM [1] 2010 (7) SCJ 814 [2] 2005 (2) SCC 217