THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3460 of 2007 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 27.03.2006 in E.P.No.675 of 2003 in O.S.No.293 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The application was filed to punish the respondents for violating the orders of injunction granted in the suit and highhandedly demolishing the structures on 21.07.2002. The revision petitioners are the decree holders in O.S.No.293 of 1995 and the suit was filed for permanent injunction when possession and enjoyment of the property was sought to be interfered and the revision petitioners were successful in the lower Court and also in the first appellate Court. According to the case of the revision petitioners, on 21.07.2002 when the order of injunction was in force, the respondents have highhandedly demolished the structures and, therefore, they are liable for punishment as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The lower Court has dismissed this application on the ground that the persons, who are responsible for the acts of demolition are not named and in the absence of such particulars the question of sending any person to civil prison does not arise. Evidently, it is to be noted that the said demolition on 21.07.2002 was said to have been down when the first appeal in A.S.No.36 of 1998 was pending. The said appeal has been disposed of on 26.02.2003. It is to be noted that this fact of highhanded demolition was not brought to the notice of the first appellate Court for giving any redressal to the plaintiff. No application also was filed for restitution of the property after the illegal dispossession from the property. The application was filed, evidently, after the disposal of the first appeal on 26.02.2003 beyond the period of one year after the alleged violation. The remedy of the revision petitioners would have been to seek for restitution of the property rather than resorting to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for disobeying the orders when the appeal was pending. Therefore, apart from the infirmities pointed out by the lower Court, the revision petitioners kept quiet after the alleged dispossession for a long time. Added to that, the plaintiff being an encroacher, the right is said to have been exercised by the Government by invoking the provisions under the Land Encroachment Act after giving due notice for which there are no tenable objections except a claim for allotment of the alternative site, which is the discretionary power with the authorities. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Execution Petition is misconceived and there are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 12-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3460 of 2007 12-10-2011 MR