THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1864 OF 2011 DATED: 29.09.2011 Between: 1. Samudrala Shiva Shankar and 2 others. .. Petitioners And 1. S. Bhupal Reddy and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1864 OF 2011 ORDER: The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.239 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII M.M., Cyberabad, Malkajgiri are the revision petitioners. The respondent No.1 herein filed the said suit against the respondent No.2 herein (defendant No.1) as well as the Revision petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule property. All the defendants were set ex parte and accordingly by judgment dated 7.7.2006 the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein/ decree-holder filed E.P.No.10 of 2008 to punish the judgment-debtors for the alleged violation of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.239 of 2001 alleging that the judgment-debtors had been causing all sorts of troubles to the decree-holder and that on 1.7.2007 they along with their henchmen came to the suit land and damaged the fencing despite the decree of perpetual injunction granted in O.S.No.239 of 2001. It was also alleged that the police refused to take action and therefore he was constrained to file the application for execution of the decree in O.S.No.239 of 2001. The revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 filed a detailed counter opposing the Execution Petition. However the Court below by order dated 19.04.2011 allowed E.P.No.10 of 2008 and issued notice of arrest against the judgment-debtors. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants 2 to 4/J.Drs. 2 to 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the judgment-debtors / revision petitioners had categorically denied the allegation that they had damaged the fencing in violation of the decree for injunction. It was specifically pleaded by them in the counter to E.P.No.10 of 2008 that they were the absolute owners of the agricultural land situated in Sy.No.298 admeasuring Ac.3-01 gunta, having purchased the same under a Registered Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney, dated 16.03.2001 and that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It was pleaded that though the Ac.0-10 guntas of land in Sy.No.238 claimed by the decree- holder was a different land, taking advantage of the ex parte decree he had encroached upon the land of the judgment-debtors 2 to 4. It was also contended that the decree-holder himself was unable to identify and localize his land and that there was a boundary dispute. The decree-holder got himself examined as P.W.1 and the owner of the adjacent land was examined as P.W.2 to establish the allegations in the execution petition. On behalf of the judgment-debtors 2 to 4/ the revision petitioners, the J.Dr.3 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 documents were marked on their behalf to establish their title and possession in respect of their land. So far as the decree- holder is concerned, he could produce only the certified copies of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.239 of 2001. Though no other document was marked to establish the alleged interference by the judgment-debtors, the Court below held that the judgment- debtors/revision petitioners were liable for punishment for disobeying the judgment and decree in O.S.No.239 of 2001. Having carefully considered the entire material available on record, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court below that there was interference by the judgment-debtors with the possession of the decree-holder in respect of the suit schedule property was not supported by any material. It is to be noticed that to substantiate the allegations in the execution petition, the decree- holder, apart from his own evidence, could produce only one witness who is said to be the owner of the neighbouring land and both of them deposed that on 1.7.2007 the judgment-debtors had damaged the fence erected around the suit schedule property and thus disobeyed the judgment and decree. On the other hand, the judgment-debtors/ revision petitioners, while claiming title and possession in respect of a different land and pleading that there is a boundary dispute and that the decree-holder himself is not in a position to identify his property, produced the documents to establish their title to the property claimed by them. It was also pleaded by them that they were not aware of the decree till they received the notices in the execution petition. In the light of the evidence noticed above, it appears to me that the Court below was not justified in concluding that the judgment-debtors had damaged the fencing on 1.7.2007. At any rate, there was no evidence at all to show that the alleged action of the judgment-debtors was deliberate. As noticed above, the specific case of the defendants was that they were not aware of the decree at all and that there was a boundary dispute. Moreover O.S.No.239 of 2001 was admittedly decreed ex parte. Hence there is no reason to conclude that there was deliberate disobedience of the decree in O.S.No.239 of 2001. It is also not disputed before this Court that I.A.No.759 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay is yet to be heard by the Court below. It is true that by the date of the order under Revision, the revision petitioners did not file any application for setting aside the ex parte decree. However such application has subsequently been filed and the same is now pending before the Court below. Therefore, arrest of the judgment-debtors/revision petitioners is unwarranted at this stage. Instead I deem it appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of I.A.No.759 of 2011 in O.S.No.239 of 2001 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G.ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.09.2011 gbs