IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATH C.R.P.No.706 of 2007 Between: The Managing Director M/s Krishna Mohan Beverages & Constructions Ltd., Now Pearl Bottling Pvt. Ltd., Chandrampalem Visakhapatnam-14 & others … Petitioners And: M/s New Krishna Enterprises, New Colony Srikakulam & another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.706 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.01.2007 in EP No.87 of 2004 in OS No.103 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein, the said application filed by the first respondent herein M/s New Krishna Enterprises-decree-holder seeking attachment of the property of the petitioners herein-JDRs 1 to 3 for willful disobedience to the decree, was allowed and the attachment warrant was issued in respect of the schedule property. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent-decree-holder. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein M/s New Krishna Enterprises, filed suit against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein and obtained a decree, inter-alia, with the following reliefs: (a) that the defendants 1 to 3 are directed to continue the supply of their soft drinks to the plaintiff for distribution in Srikakulam town by way of granting mandatory injunction; (b) that the defendants 1 to 3, their men and agents and servants are restraining from supplying the soft drinks for distribution in Srikakulam town through any agency by way of granting permanent injunction. Thus, by virtue of the said decree, there has been a positive direction to the defendants to supply the soft drinks to the plaintiff for distribution and the defendants are also restrained from distributing the soft drinks to any agency. The respondent herein filed EP No.87 of 2004 seeking attachment of the property of the JDrs 1 to 3 alleging that they have willfully disobeyed the direction contained in the decree. 4. It is not disputed that the appeals i.e., AS No.22 and 23 of 2001 preferred against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, were also dismissed. The respondent herein alleges that the petitioners- JDrs 1 to 3 are not supplying the soft drinks for distribution through the respondent-decree-holder and they are supplying the same through other agency. The petitioners-JDrs 1 to 3 filed a counter contending that the JDRs have opened their own soft drinks distribution agency and the same is not prohibited by the decree of the court. According to them, it was an exparte decree and they filed a petition in IA No.247 of 2001 in OS No.103 of 1998 for setting aside the exparte decree and the said application is pending and therefore, the present E.P. is not maintainable. 5. During enquiry before the executing Court, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 was marked on behalf of the Decree-holder. RW.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked on behalf of the Judgment debtors. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge, held that there has been violation of the direction contained in the decree by the JDRs and hence, their property is liable for attachment under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 6. The decree in OS No.103 of 1998 was passed against the petitioners-JDrs 1 to 3 and 2nd respondent herein-4th JDr. The JDrs 1 to 3 preferred AS No.22 of 2001 and 4th JDr-2nd respondent herein, filed AS No.23 of 2001. AS No.22 of 2001 was dismissed in view of the joint memo filed Ex.R.1 by both the parties on record on 05.02.2004, wherein, it is stated that petition in IA No.247 of 2001 filed for setting aside the decree was pending in the lower Court. Ex.R.2 is the certified copy of the decree and Ex.R.3 is the certified copy of decree in AS No.22 of 2001. AS No.23 of 2001, which was filed by the 2nd respondent herein-4th JDr, was dismissed on merits, confirming the judgment and decree in OS No.103 of 1998. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of decree in AS No.23 of 2001. The only contention of the petitioners-JDrs 1 to 3 is that the application filed by them in IA No.247 of 2001 for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending and therefore, EP is not maintainable. As rightly observed by the executing Court in the impugned order, mere pendency of the application for setting aside the exparte decree does not prevent the decree-holder from executing the decree. It is to be noted that the decree in OS No.103 of 1998 was confirmed in AS No.23 of 2001 to which the petitioners herein-JDrs 1 to 3 were also parties and they were presented by counsel. The petitioners-JDrs 1 to 3 cannot resist the execution of the decree merely on the ground of pendency of IA No.247 of 2001. 7. Regarding the alleged violation of the directions contained in the Decree, PW.1-decree-holder testified that in spite of the decree for injunction directing the JDrs to supply soft drinks to the DHr for distribution, the JDrs have opened go-down for distribution by another agency and thereby violated the directions contained in the decree. The JDrs contended that PW.1 resigned the dealership for distribution of soft drinks and hence, they did not distribute the soft drinks to the DHr. They did not, however, adduce any evidence to show that the DHr resigned the dealership. RW.1 categorically admitted that they are not distributing the soft drinks to the DHr. RW.1 also admitted that he has not produced any record to show that the JDrs 1 to 3 are personally distributing soft drinks. Their contention that they are doing the distribution on their own, therefore, remains unsubstantiated, as no evidence is adduced in support of the said plea. RW.1 states that he has no personal knowledge about Ex.R.1, wherein, it is stated that the JDrs are making efforts to settle the matter with the DHr. The petitioners-JDrs 1 to 3 have not placed any material before the Court to show that any such efforts towards settlement were made. When the petitioner-JDrs failed to establish that they have been distributing soft drinks on their own and not through any other agency and in view of the admission of RW.1 that they have not supplied any soft drinks to the DHr for distribution, the executing Court has rightly held that there has been violation of the directions contained in the decree. 8. No doubt, there is no prohibition contained in the decree that the JDRs 1 to 3 shall not do the distribution business of their own, but there is positive direction that they shall supply soft drinks for distribution to the DHr and that they shall not supply through any other agency. The categorical admission of RW.1 to the effect that the JDrs have not been supplying the soft drinks to the DHr for distribution is sufficient to hold that there has been clear violation of direction contained in the decree. The impugned order of the executing Court holding that the property of the JDrs is liable for attachment, as they willfully disobeyed the decree under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC does not therefore, call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as the said order does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.07.2010 bss