HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.411 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘C.P.C.’), is directed against an order made in E.P.No.102 of 2003 in O.S.No.150 of 1993 dated 19/10/2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor under Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. with a prayer to execute the decree for injunction and for the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison was dismissed. The petitioner is the decree-holder. The respondent is the judgment-debtor. It appears that the petitioner laid suit in O.S.No.150 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, seeking permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering into the suit schedule property of Ac.2- 00 of land in Sy.No.283/2P (283/3) of Damavaram village of Dagadharthi Mandal. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 01/10/1994. After more than ten years, the present execution petition is filed stating that the respondent/judgment-debtor is interfering into the suit schedule property in spite of there being a permanent injunction in his favour. The said application was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter stating that the decree is not maintainable as the land in Sy.No.283 to an extent of 0.50 cents was assigned to the judgment-debtor, and since then, the judgment-debtor is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The land of the decree-holder is in Sy.No.283/2P. Hence, the execution petition may be dismissed. On behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1, however, no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material on record, the Execution Court recorded a finding that the decree-holder did not specify the particulars with regard to the violation of the injunction orders committed by the judgment-debtor. The approximate date and time and the nature of violation of the injunction decree by the judgment-debtor are neither pleaded nor proved. The evidence of P.W.1 is general without attributing specific act of violation committed by the judgment-debtor. Except for the evidence of decree-holder there is no evidence even to support the contention of the decree-holder that the judgment-debtor and her sons violated the injunction. While holding so, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Venkateswarlu, strenuously contended that the findings recorded by the Execution Court that the boundaries of the land in O.S.No.150 of 1993 and the suit which is filed by the respondent in O.S.No.176 of 2008, which is pending, are different. The Court also recorded a finding that they are altogether different and it has stated that a Surveyor was also appointed, but according to the petitioner, when the survey was being conducted, no notice of any kind was issued to him, and therefore, the said report of the Surveyor could not have been relied upon by the Execution Court for deciding this particular application. Under those circumstances, without going into other merits, the impugned order is set aside and E.P.No.102 of 2003 in O.S.No.150 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, is remanded to the Execution Court for fresh consideration. The Execution Court shall permit both parties to lead further evidence and also appoint a Surveyor for identifying the EP property and call for a report from the Surveyor for deciding the matter. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 19th April, 2010 NOTE: Furnish C.C. by one week. B/o. SKM