IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1576 & 1577 of 2008 Between: Kovilkar Lakshmoji … Petitioner And: M Vara Kumari & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1576 & 1577 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions arose out of the common order dated 31.03.2008 in EA Nos.678 and 679 of 2007 in EP No.236 of 2002 in OS No.536 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said applications filed by the first respondent herein-auction purchaser seeking direction to the JDr to demolish wall constructed by him causing obstruction to the execution of the warrant and seeking to punish the JDr for causing obstruction, were allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-JDr and the learned counsel for the first respondent-auction purchaser. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein-DHr obtained a decree against the petitioner-JDr for recovery of certain amounts and in execution thereof, brought the immoveable property of the petitioner to sale, which was purchased by the first respondent-auction purchaser in the Court auction sale. The JDr filed EA No.95 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the sale and the same was dismissed on 26.06.2006. Subsequently, when the first respondent-auction purchaser sought to take delivery of possession through the process of Court, the Amin who was deputed to effect delivery, found that the entry to the property was blocked by construction of a wall by the JDr. The first respondent- auction purchaser therefore alleges that by constructing the wall blocking access to the schedule property, the petitioner-JDr rendered himself liable for removal of the obstruction. The petitioner-JDr filed a counter inter-alia contending that the schedule property purchased by the first respondent has no access from the road and that the petitioner-JDr merely constructed a compound wall to safeguard the rest of his property. The executing Court by impugned order however allowed both the applications directing demolition of the wall constructed and also committing him to civil prison for 30 days in the event of his failure to remove the wall within 15 days. Aggrieved by the same, the JDr filed the present revisions. 4. It is not disputed that the first respondent-auction purchaser purchased the thatched house situated in D.No.9-64- 25A, Kothapet, Vijayawada, which is an extent of 51.1 sq. yards. The boundaries in the said property are, East – property of the JDr, south – property of JDr and others, West – compound wall of JDr and others, and north – Potluri Subramanyam compound wall and JDr’s property. It can therefore be seen that the property purchased by the first respondent has no access to the road from any side and on all four sides, the property of JDr is situated. The contention of the JDr is that the first respondent having purchased the said property, which is land locked and having no access to the road, in the Court auction sale with eyes wide open, cannot now seek to have access to the property through the property of JDr. The executing Court in the impugned order observed that the said contention was never raised by the JDr previously at any stage, including in the petition filed for setting aside the sale. When the first respondent intended to purchase the property in the Court auction sale, he ought to have verified the boundaries and availability of access to the road on any side, but he did not do so. Now at the time of delivery of the property, the first respondent finds that the property is not having any access to the road when the JDr constructed a wall between the schedule property and his remaining property, which is only in the nature of safeguarding rest of his property, it cannot be construed as causing obstruction to the delivery of the schedule property. 5. It is significant to note that the first respondent has not purchased any easementary right of passage over the rest of the property of the JDr for the purpose of ingress and egress to the schedule property. When the first respondent has not thus acquired any easementary right of passage over the remaining property of the JDr and when such an easementary right was not the subject matter of the auction sale at all, he cannot now seek to have such a right carved out through the property of the JDr. The JDr to protect his property constructed the compound wall separating the schedule property from the rest of his property and the said wall is therefore not liable to be removed. The impugned order directing demolition of the said wall and directing detention of the petitioner-JDr in civil prison in the event of his failure to remove the wall, is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly set aside, as the question of causing obstruction by the JDr does not arise at all. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.08.2011 bss