IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH (17TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5303 of 2006 Between: Ch.Chandra Rao Petitioner And: Ch. Gowri Sankar Rao @ Chittibabu & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5303 of 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.08.2006 in EP No.2 of 2005 in OS No.46 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali, wherein the E.P. was disposed of by ordering arrest of the JDr for violation of the decree. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/JDr and the respondents/DHRs. Perused the record. 3. The respondents/decree-holders filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner/JDr. The suit was decreed granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from production of salt exclusively detrimental to the joint rights of the plaintiffs and defendant, in an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.477 under Licence No.61. The Decree-holders filed E.P.No.2 of 2005 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC complaining that the JDr has violated the decree by cultivating the land and producing the salt to the detriment of the decree-holders. The petitioner/JDr filed counter denying the same. During enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The Executing Court, however, recorded a finding that it is proved that the JDr willfully failed to obey the decree in the suit and is liable to be detained in the civil prison. 4. The impugned order does not disclose how and on what basis, the said finding came to be recorded. It appears that previously, the decree holders filed E.A.No.9 of 2005 for police aid against the JDr alleging that the JDr willfully disobeyed the decree. Simply because, the decree-holders filed petition for police aid, the allegation of willful disobedience to the decree made therein cannot be presumed to be true and correct. When the DHRs are complaining that the JDr violated the directions contained in the decree, the DHrs have to establish the same by adducing necessary evidence. Even the DHrs have not chosen to testify themselves or adduce any other evidence to show how and in what manner the JDr disobeyed the order of injunction and caused any detriment to the interest of the DHRs. It is to be noted that there is no prohibition or restraint against the JDr from entering the land or cultivating the same or producing the salt. The permanent injunction granted is only to the effect that the JDr shall not produce the salt exclusively and detrimental to the joint rights of the plaintiffs and defendant. In the absence of any evidence to show that the JDr cultivated the land and produced salt and such cultivation was detrimental to the joint rights of the plaintiffs and defendant, the question of violation of the decree does not arise. The executing Court clearly erred in recording the finding that the JDr willfully failed to obey the decree, merely on the basis that previously the decree-holders filed an application for police aid. The issuance of warrant of arrest under the circumstances is uncalled for. The impugned order is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.06.2010 bss