THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1372 OF 2010 DATED: 03-03-2011. Between Sha Chohanraj Nagaji … Petitioner-D.Hr. And The Guntur Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur. …Respondent-J.Dr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1372 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 22-01-2010, in E.P.No.17 of 2009 in O.S.No.453 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC to prosecute the judgment debtor as the judgment debtor willfully violated the directions in the decree, was dismissed. 2. Order XXI Rule 32 (i) CPC inter alia states that where a decree is for an injunction and the judgment debtor willfully disobeys such decree, it may be executed by attachment of property of the judgment debtor or by his detention, or by both. The onus of proof of ingredients of this rule is on the decree holder. It must be shown that there must be a willful disobedience of the decree. In other words the disobedience was willful, intentional or deliberate. 3. The petitioner herein filed the above suit challenging the notice, dated 03-12-2003 issued by the respondent herein demanding him to pay tax of Rs.26,874/-and the same was decreed in his favour declaring that the notice dated 03-12-2003 is invalid and further restrained the respondent by way of permanent injunction from collecting the tax more than Rs.352/- per half year except by following the due process of law. Thereafter, the Municipality issued notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.4,100/- in terms of G.O.Ms.No.732, dated 29-09-2007. Later the same was reduced to Rs.3,520/- as per G.O.Ms.No.846, dated 26- 11-2007. Therefore, the petitioner filed the Execution Petition. 4. The petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 5. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent-Municipal Corporation has not violated the injunction order, that the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without due process of law, tax cannot be enhanced for half year and therefore, the respondent-Municipal Corporation has violated the judgment and decree of the competent civil Court and hence, he prays to allow the revision. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner obtained a decree restraining the respondent from collecting the tax more than Rs.352/- per half year except in accordance with law. The respondent- Municipal Corporation filed counter stating that the tax was enhanced from Rs.352/- to Rs.4,100/- per half year as per G.O.Ms.No.732, dated 29-09-2007. Thereafter, the tax was reduced to Rs.3,520/- in pursuance of the subsequent G.O. issued in G.O.Ms.No.846, dated 26-11-2007. The decree was obtained on 19-04-2005. It is not stated by the petitioner before the trial Court or before this Court that the revised tax is not in accordance with G.Os issued by the Government. Therefore, question of willful disobedience of the order passed by the trial Court does not arise in view of the fact that enhancement of tax is based upon subsequent to the two G.Os. issued by the Government after passing of the decree. The enhancement of tax is completely in accordance with the decree. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 03-03-2011 Hsd