THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1325 of 2011 November 04, 2011 Between: Devina Annapurna Sujatha, W/o.V.Kumaraswamy ... Petitioner And Manchiraju Jayaprada Devi, W/o.Hanumantharao ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1325 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent obtained a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioner (Judgment Debtor No.2) and another in O.S.No.70 of 2002. She then filed E.P.No.288 of 2008 seeking a direction to Judgment Debtors (J.Drs) to remove all the obstructions in the ‘A B C D’ joint lane for her passage. The petitioner and another J.Dr raised various objections. One of them was that when there was no specific direction to remove Municipal drinking water pipeline or septic tank, any direction to that effect would be contrary to the decree passed by the trial Court. The objection was overruled and the E.P. was ordered. Thereafter the petitioner/J.Dr No.2 again filed E.A. No.155 of 2011 purportedly under Rules 35, 97, 99 and 101 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). He prayed to make an enquiry and direct that the Municipal drinking water pipeline and septic tank pit existing in the underground do not cause any obstruction to the respondent/Decree Holder. The application was dismissed by the Court below on 18.3.2011, aggrieved by which the present civil revision petition is filed. The Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the decree passed by the trial Court does not contain any specific direction to J.Drs to remove Municipal drinking water pipeline or septic tank and, therefore, any direction to remove them would be contrary to the decree itself. This Court has perused the order of the Court below thoroughly and is not able to accept the submission. There is no dispute that at the stage of E.P., the petitioner raised all the objections and they were overruled and, therefore, filing of another application under Rules 35, 97, 99 and 101 of Order XXI of CPC would not be proper. If at this stage the Court below accepts plea of the petitioner/J.Dr No.2 it would amount to modifying the decree itself. There is also no dispute that the decree for mandatory injunction was granted directing the J.Drs to remove all the obstructions in ‘A B C D’ joint lane. In that view of the matter, the order of the Court below is unexceptionable. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) November 04, 2011 YS