THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4037 of 2008 DATE: 21st July, 2011 Between: Vallamdas Kattaiah … Petitioner / DHr And Vallamdas Yesuratnam and 2 others … Respondent / JDrs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4037 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is decree holder in O.S.No.35 of 1992 dated 17.07.1997. By virtue of this decree, a permanent injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents with respect to suit schedule namely Ac.1-28 guntas of land. The said decree became final on dismissal of A.S.No.31 of 2004 by the learned VI- Additional District Judge, Warangal. Thereafter, the respondent- judgment debtor appears to have filed a fresh suit O.S.No.290 of 2006 again for permanent injunction with respect to 34 guntas which is allegedly part of the suit schedule decree in O.S.No.35 of 1992. However, in the said suit of the respondent vide orders in I.A.No.507 of 2006 dated 19.02.2007, a temporary injunction appears to have been granted in favour of the respondent. In the meanwhile, alleging interference, the petitioner has filed the present E.P. seeking arrest and detention of the respondent for violating the decree in O.S.No.35 of 1992 referred above. Under the impugned order, the said E.P. was dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that there subsists an injunction against the petitioner in I.A.No.507 of 2006 in O.S.No.209 of 2006 dated 19.02.2007; and also on the ground that the petitioner has neither deposed nor there is any other material to substantiate the alleged interference by the respondents. The said impugned order is questioned in this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents though served, no body appeared on their behalf. The decree in favour of the petitioner appears to have attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2004, and apart from that, part of the suit schedule is allegedly subject matter of the subsequent suit of the respondent in O.S.No.290 of 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner is neither in a position to confirm the present stage of the said suit nor as to whether the temporary injunction in I.A.No.507 of 2006 subsists or otherwise. Since the petitioner has been granted a decree for permanent injunction, the executing Court is bound to pass appropriate orders under Order XXI Rule 37 of C.P.C., as the decree for permanent injunction cannot be defeated even by a temporary injunction obtained by judgment debtor with respect to the part of the property which is allegedly covered by the decree for injunction. However, all these aspects, at this distance of time, cannot be ascertained. Thus, giving liberty to the petitioner to substantiate these aspects before the executing Court, the impugned order is set aside and the E.P.No.81 of 2007 restored on the file of the executing Court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad with liberty to petitioners as well as judgment debtor to lead oral and documentary evidence, if any in support of their respective case; and on such material produced, the executing Court shall hear and dispose of the Execution Petition afresh in accordance with law. The CRP is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 21st July, 2011 KSM