THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2857 OF 2010 DATED: 17-03-2011. Between 1.S.Hari Prasada Rao and another … Petitioners-J.Drs And Jonnavithala Swamy Sri Purandra Murthy …Respondent-D.Hr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2857 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 15-06-2010, in E.P.No.255 of 2009 in O.S.No.1234 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in attaching the property of the down stair building of J.Drs for disobedience of the judgment and decree. 2. By virtue of the decree, the trial Court granted permanent injunction in respect of joint nadava restraining the respondent from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff for his ingress and egress. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no allegation that the J.Drs were obstructing the D.Hr and his men for using the joint nadava and therefore, she pray to set aside the impugned order. 4. Column 12 of the Execution Petition reads that the Decree holder submits that he had obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining the J.Dr from interfering in respect of taking water etc., that decree holder is entitled for the joint nadava for ingress and egress, that the decree holder is entitled to make constructions and enjoy the property as he has got title, which was also the subject matter of the suit, that the decree holder has gathered constructions material of cement, sand, bricks for construction, which was obstructed by the J.Dr and also lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur and the J.Dr is not implementing the order and decree of the Court. The aforesaid reliefs asked for are not in accordance with the decree except one relief. There is no permission granted under the decree to the decree holder to make constructions. The allegation is that the decree holder gathered construction material of cement, sand etc., and the same was objected by the J.Drs. That relief was not granted as seen from the decree. There cannot be any dispute that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The decree granted in favour of decree holder is that he is entitled for use of joint nadava for ingress and egress. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Petitioners herein filed an undertaking affidavit stating that they would not cause any obstruction to the decree holder for using joint nadava for his ingress and egress. 6. Recording the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 15-06-2010, in E.P.No.255 of 2009 in O.S.No.1234 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 17-03-2011 Hsd