THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6284 of 2006 ORDER: 1 The petitioner has filed an application in O.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) praying that the respondents be sent to civil prison and their properties be attached. The petitioner states that his father, Gangadharam, filed O.S.No.123 of 1982 for compensation and damages for unauthorized removal of the trees planted by him. He also filed two other suits – O.S.No.74 and 932 of 1980 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from further cutting down the remaining trees. Later, the two suits were transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, and renumbered as O.S.Nos.14 and 13 of 1988 respectively. All the three suits were clubbed together and by common judgment compensation as well as permanent injunction was granted. To the extent of decree granting compensation i.e. O.S.No.123 of 1982, two first appeals – A.S.No.3008 of 1990 by defendant No.3 and A.S.No.3168 of 1990 by defendant Nos.1 and 2, were filed. These appeals together with the cross-objections were dismissed by this court by judgment dated 26.03.2009 confirming the decree for compensation. Present application for attachment is moved in O.S.No.14 of 1988 and the Court below rejected the same in view of the fact that no suit is pending on the file of the court below and such application at best could have been moved in execution petition. The said order is assailed in this revision. 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who tried to sustain the impugned order by contending that the decree passed by the Court below was also confirmed by this court. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of Bombay High Court in Yashodabai Ganesh Naik Vs. Shri Gopi Mukund Naik[1] in support of his contention that there can be any number of execution petitions if there is disobedience of the decree more than once. The said decision also holds that the executing Court can proceed to attach property of the Judgment Debtor who has disobeyed the decree and if disobedience further persists the Judgment Debtor may again be detained in civil prison depending upon the gravity or breach committed by him. The learned counsel points out that the application was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and that there was no infirmity. 4 I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the interlocutory application was filed in a disposed of suit and, secondly the said application was moved and came to be decided when appeals – A.S.Nos.3008 and 3168 of 1990 were still pending. In view of later dismissal of the appeals confirming the decree of the court below, the impugned application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.538 of 2003 was rightly not entertained by the court below during pendency of appeals. 5 The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner claims to have obtained a decree in his favour, it is open to him to put the decree for execution in accordance with law. No costs. ------------------------------------------ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 16.09.2011 Kvsn [1] AIR 2003 Bombay 77