THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.2506 OF 2010 23-07-2010 Between: P.kondaiah and others ..Petitioner Vs. The Ongole Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.2506 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This is a revision by the decree holders in O.S.No.505 of 1995 and is directed against the order dated 26-04-2010 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole rejecting E.P.No.228 of 2009. E.P.No.228 of 2009 was filed under Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC for prosecuting the respondent/judgment debtor for alleged violation and disobedience of the injunction order granted in the suit. The first petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent herein and its subordinates from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed in favour of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs after contest, on 01-04- 1998. The respondent preferred AS 143 of 2002, which was also dismissed on 16-03-2006. As the respondent allegedly violated the injunction order by erecting electrical poles in the suit schedule property in violation of the decree in the suit which had become final, the revision petitioners filed the E.P. On a cogent and careful analysis of the evidence and the matter; since the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 14-09-2009 (filed pursuant to the order appointing a Commissioner in E.A.No.1140 of 2009), was found to be inconclusive as regards any interference by the respondent- Municipality into the petitioners’ property and contrary to the injunction order issued in the suit; and in the context of the petitioners failing to marshal any independent evidence in support of their claim of contumacious interference by the respondent/Municipality by erecting electrical poles after the decree, the court below held and rightly that the petitioners failed to establish that the respondent violated the decree of permanent injunction granted in the suit and accordingly dismissed the Execution Petition. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd JULY 2010 TSNR