HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.782 of 2011 Date: August 11, 2011 Between: M.A.Jaleel, S/o.Md.Ismail, aged about 49 years, Occ:Town Planning Officer, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Hanamakonda/ R/o.Hanamakonda, Warangal District and another … Petitioners And Tripurari Rajaiah (died as per LRs), and others … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed calling in question the order dated 26.10.2010 passed in E.P.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 1986 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit against the 4th respondent-Municipality (presently Municipal Corporation, Warangal) and obtained a decree for perpetual injunction with regard to the suit schedule property. Respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent-plaintiff and who came on record, have filed E.P.No.142 of 2008 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that on 19.02.2008, the petitioners and one other person who are the employees of the Municipality have demolished the compound wall, which is a part of the suit schedule property having knowledge that there is a decree against the Municipality. On the said allegations, respondents 2 and 3 sought relief to commit the petitioners to civil prison for flouting the orders of perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court. The said E.P. is resisted by the petitioners by filing a counter. In the counter, they denied the allegation of respondents 2 and 3 that they have demolished structures in the suit schedule property. It is pleaded in the counter that description of the property as shown in the decree is different to that of the one shown in the E.P. Pleading so, they sought dismissal of the E.P. Before the trial Court, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. The 1st petitioner herein was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. The trial Court, mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.3 came to a conclusion that the petitioners herein have demolished the compound wall by disobeying the injunction orders passed in O.S.No.288 of 1986 and ordered to send them to civil prison for a period of 30 days for willful breach of the perpetual injunction orders. It is contended by Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners that in spite of the fact that petitioners have not violated and undertaken any demolition as alleged by respondents 2 and 3, the trial Court has passed the impugned order to send the petitioners to civil prison for a period of 30 days. It is further contended that there is no valid and acceptable material on record to show that the petitioners had the knowledge of the decree and have willfully flouted the orders of the Court by demolishing the structures. It is submitted that the trial Court mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.3 has passed the impugned order and the deposition of P.W.3 itself is contradictory and no case is made out to prove that the petitioners have violated the injunction orders passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgments in Shivamurthy Mahalingappa Kuchanaur v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, Rabakavi[1] and Polavarapu Nagamani and others v. Parchuri Koteswhara Rao and others[2] On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, that P.W.3 is an independent witness who has clearly stated that the petitioners were involved in demolition of the compound wall, which is a part of the suit schedule property covered by the decree in O.S.No.288 of 1986. It is submitted that in view of the independent evidence of P.W.3, it is proved that petitioners have flouted the injunction orders by undertaking demolition of the compound wall which is a part of the suit schedule property; hence there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that as much as there is no jurisdictional error, no case is made out to interfere with the order under challenge. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgments in Syed Ghori Khaleel Basha v. Podamekala Kondaiah[3] and Pothina Narasamma (dead) by Lrs. V. Marupilla Ammaji and others[4]. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the order passed by the trial Court in E.P.No.142 of 2008 and also the depositions of the witnesses who are examined before the trial Court. It is the case of respondents 2 and 3 herein that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and they are residing in Hyderabad and P.W.3 is the tenant in the suit schedule property. To prove their case, they were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and their tenant Smt.Ch.Vijaya is examined as P.W.3. The trial Court has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.3 and recorded a finding that she has named the petitioners and has stated that three persons came to the suit schedule property with crowbars and demolished the compound wall. On the ground that she has named the petitioners herein; the trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners have violated the injunction orders. On behalf of P.W.3 an affidavit was filed in lieu of chief examination. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated as under: “Since March, 2008 I have been residing in the suit schedule house as tenant. Witness adds that: I have been residing since 2007, but not from March 2008. I have not filed any document to show I have been residing in the suit schedule house as tenant since 2007 like photo identity card, ration card, voter list etc. I have no land-phone. I know the facts in this E.P., some municipal people came to our house and demolished a wall i.e., compound wall and I informed the same to my owners through phone. Three persons came to the house. They came along with crow-bars and other articles and demolished the compound wall. I have not noted the vehicle on which they came to the house but they informed that they belongs to employees of first J.Dr. On my enquiry I came to know that one Raja Goud, Jaleel and another person came to our house and demolished the compound wall.” A perusal of the deposition of P.W.3 would indicate that the same is inconsistent. The alleged demolition has taken place on 19.02.2008 and at first instance P.W.3 has stated that she has been residing in the suit schedule property since March, 2008 and further corrected it as 2007. In the cross-examination, she has deposed that she is not having any documentary evidence to show that she was staying in the suit schedule property since March, 2007. Even while naming the petitioners she has stated that three persons have come along with crow-bars and on enquiry she came to know that they are Raja Goud, Jaleel and another person. At this point of time, it is to be noticed that the 2nd petitioner is Sri Raju Naik, but not Raja Goud as named by P.W.3. Added to that, there is no supporting evidence filed to prove that P.W.3 has been staying in the aforesaid house since 2007. Though initially P.W.3 stated that she has been staying in the house from March, 2008, but, further she corrected it as 2007. In view of such contradictory statement of P.W.3 in the cross- examination and in absence of any other documentary evidence in support of her deposition that she was staying in the house during February, 2008, it is very difficult to accept her evidence so as to order for sending the petitioners to civil prison. In the judgment relied on by learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Shivamurthy (1 supra), a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court has held as under: “Sub-rule (1) of R.32 of O.XXI of the Code, in so far it is material for the present discussion, reads thus: “Where the party against whom a decree for an injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison. The Sub-rule, as seen from its clear and explicit language, provides that a decree for injunction passed against a party could be enforced by his detention in a civil prison, if he has willfully failed to obey such decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying it. In other words, the sub-rule, no doubt, enables a holder of a decree for injunction to seek its execution from the executing Court by requiring it to order the detention of the person bound by the decree, in a civil prison. But, the Court cannot, according to the same sub-rule, make an order for detention of the person unless it is satisfied that that person has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and yet has willfully disobeyed it.” Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Polavarapu Nagamani (2 supra) has formulated guidelines with regard to standard of proof required in cases where there are allegations of disobedience of injunction orders passed by trial Courts. In the said judgment, the Division Bench held as under: “The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (13) (2001) 7 SCC 530 = 2001(6)ALT 21.2 (DNSC) and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (14) (2002) 4 SCC 21 = 2002 (4) ALT 5.2 (DNSC), in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or self- serving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is to be noticed that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff who obtained decree for injunction and are interested witnesses. Apart from them, the only evidence is of P.W3, who is stated to be the tenant of P.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence of P.W.3, as stated above, is not consistent and not supported by any other documentary evidence to prove that she was the witness for the demolition which is alleged to have taken place on 19.02.2008. Further, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners support the case of the petitioners. I am of the view that the no sufficient evidence is placed on record to accept the case of respondents 2 and 3 that petitioners have flouted the injunction orders, so as to keep them in civil prison as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that there is sufficient evidence to order detention of the petitioners in civil prison, but, for the reasons referred above, I am of the view that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that petitioners have flouted the injunction orders so as to send them to civil prison. Though learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 relied on the judgments in Syed Ghori Khaleel Basha (3 supra) and Pothina Narasamma (4 supra), in this case, it is to be noticed that, by ordering to keep the petitioners in civil prison for a period of 30 days, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in absence of any legally acceptable evidence of high standard. In such an event, it is always open for this Court to correct such errors committed by the trial Court, in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. Such interference cannot be called as interference with a finding of fact so as to apply the judgment relied on by learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 to the case on hand. The said judgment would not render any assistance to the respondents having regard to the fact that this Court is of the view that the trial Court has exceeded jurisdiction vested in it and committed jurisdictional error. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 26.10.2010 passed in E.P.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 1986 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal is set aside. Civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 23, 2011 MRR [1] AIR 1987 KARNATAKA 26 [2] 2010 (6) ALT 92 (D.B.) [3] 2001 (6) ALT 373 (D.B.) [4] (2006) 9 SCC 749