THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2711 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 08.03.2010, in E.P.No.246 of 2006 in O.S.No.138 of 1991, on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to direct the petitioners/judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4, who are the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtor No.1, to remove the construction made by judgment debtor No.1 in the seven feet width joint passage, as he died subsequent to the decree without removing the said construction and the petitioners failed to permit the respondents/decree holders to remove the said construction and to recover its cost, was allowed. 2. Heard. 3. The suit was filed by the deceased judgment debtor No.1/plaintiff for permanent injunction. But, the trial Court allowed the counter claim filed by the respondents/decree holders and passed the decree on 23.09.2003. That has become final. The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor No.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein filed a memo on 29.01.2010 in the executing Court stating that the construction in the joint passage between the property of the petitioners and the respondents was already removed and therefore, the question of entrusting warrant to the Amin for removal of obstruction does not arise. On the other hand, it was denied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein in the executing Court. Therefore, the executing Court ordered for issuance of warrant for the purpose of removal of construction made by the deceased judgment debtor No.1 in the seven feet width joint passage. 4. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI C.P.C. empowers the executing Court to enforce the decree at the cost of the judgment debtor who willfully and deliberately disobeys such decree. 5. Though the petitioners stated that they have removed the construction in the seven feet width joint passage, it was refuted by the respondents. Necessarily, the warrant has to be entrusted to the Amin to find out whether such an obstruction is in existence. If there is any construction in the joint passage in pursuance of the decree, that can be verified by the Amin, to whom warrant will be entrusted. If the construction was already removed as contended by the petitioners/judgment debtors, the Amin will report the same to the Court. If the construction is not removed, the Amin is entitled to remove the construction in the joint passage in terms of the decree. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 14, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2711 OF 2010 Between: Sunisetti Rajeswari and others .....PETITIONERS AND Malla Appa Rao and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2711 OF 2010 March 14, 2011