IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3841 OF 2008 Between: M. Veeranjeneyulu ..... Petitioner AND K. Raghuveer and 3 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3841 OF 2008 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 31.07.2008, in E.P.No.119 of 2006 in O.S.No.151 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1 was ordered to be sent to the Civil Prison on payment of batta. 2. The Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows: The respondent/decree holder obtained a decree on 10.04.2002 restraining the judgment debtors not to alienate the schedule properties to third parties. But, the Judgment Debtor Nos.1 & 2 in contravention in terms of the decree had sold the schedule property to third parties. Hence, the respondent/decree holder filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 32 (1) of C.P.C. to send the Judgment Debtor Nos.1 & 2 to civil prison as he violated the decree of permanent injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject matter of the decree of permanent injunction not to alienate the schedule property is entirely different from that of the land sold by the petitioner herein, and therefore, he prays to remand the matter so that necessary evidence is produced before the trial Court. 4. The questions to be decided in the execution petition are: 1. Whether the judgment debtor No.1 in contravention of the decree violated the orders of the Court and sold the house plot situated in schedule annexed to the decree? 2. Whether the land in S.No.366 and the land in R.S.No.366/B is one and the same? 5. In view of the fact that no evidence was let in by the parties to show that the land in S.No.366 was sub-divided, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner herein to let in evidence to show that the land covered by the decree is different from the land sold by him. 6. Hence, the impugned order, dated 31.07.2008, in E.P.No.119 of 2006 in O.S.No.151 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to give opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence, and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 3rd November, 2010. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3841 OF 2008 3rd November, 2010. KL