IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4043 OF 2010 Between : Patnam Yadi Reddy .... PETITIONER A N D Smt Allada Neelamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4043 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the judgment, dated 22.03.2010, in E.P.No.11 of 2008 in O.S.No.82 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC to send the petitioner / judgment debtor No.2 to Civil Prison in contravention of the orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.1095 of 2006 in O.S.No.82 of 2006, was allowed directing the petitioner be sent to civil prison for a period of 45 days subject to payment of subsistence allowance by respondent No.1/decree holder. 2. O.S.No.82 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, was filed by the respondents herein for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, I.A.No.238 of 2006 was filed to restrain the petitioner herein from alienating the suit schedule lands to third parties, and the same was allowed. By violating the order, the petitioner/judgment debtor No.2 sold away the land of Ac 1.13 guntas to one Baliquddin. Since the petitioner has violated the injunction orders, respondent No.1/decree holder filed I.A.No.1095 of 2007 under Section XXXIX Rule 2(a) CPC to punish the petitioner for violation of the injunction order, dated 21.03.2006. That petition was allowed. He also filed E.P.No.11 of 2008 to send the petitioner to civil prison as he contravened of the injunction orders and the same, was allowed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not received summons in the suit as well as in the execution proceedings; that it is an ex parte order; that no purpose would be served if the petitioner sent to Civil prison; that the petitioner was detained in the civil prison for a period of three weeks and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. No doubt, ex parte order was passed on 23.02.2007 in I.A.No.1095 of 2006. But, it is not shown that the summons have not been served on them. Even though an ex parte injunction order was obtained, the same was violated by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent filed execution petition to send the petitioner to civil prison for violation of injunction order. 5. There is no proof to show that respondent No.1 has not served summons in the execution proceedings. As there is a clear violation of injunction order, the trial Court rightly punished the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. But considering the fact that the petitioner was already detained in civil prison for a period of three weeks, that would be a proper and sufficient punishment for violation of injunction orders. 6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 29, 2011 YVL