THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.4986 of 2010 Date : 24-12-2010 Between: M.Damayanthi @ Gopidalai Damayanthi and others .. Petitioners and Guntrothu Rama Rao s/o.late Lingaraju .. Respondent Counsel for petitioners : Sri A.Ravi Shankar Counsel for respondent : Sri A.Rama Rao The court made the following : ORDER: The limited grievance of the petitioners in this C.R.P. filed against order dated 22-7-2010 in E.P.No.13/2009 in O.S.No.73/2001 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali is that purporting to execute the decree for mandatory injunction, the Amin is stated to have delivered A-Schedule property to the respondent on 23-8-2010 under receipt stated to have been obtained from the latter. At the hearing Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the above mentioned endorsement appears to be a mistake because his client obtained a decree only for mandatory injunction for removal of the fence and that in the absence of any prayer or delivery of possession, much less a decree to that effect, his client is not entitled for delivery of possession. He has further stated that on 23-8-2010, the fence raised by the petitioners was removed by the Amin in execution of the decree and that subsequently the petitioners have again erected the fence on 16-9- 2010. The learned Counsel further stated that apart from giving a police report against the petitioners, a fresh E.P. has been filed for execution of the mandatory injunction. In view of the above statement of the learned counsel, the C.R.P. is disposed of by holding that the respondent is not entitled for delivery of possession of the property but only to the extent of removal of the fence under the decree for mandatory injunction. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 24-12-2010 AM