APHC010445992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2166/2025 Between: 1. SINGMANENI KOTAMMA, W/O. MALAKONDIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, JAMMALAPALEM VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOGULA MUSALAIAH, , S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SAPOTA THOTA NEAR NALANDA SCHOOL, KAVALI TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. GOGULA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, (DIED) 3. GOGULA SEENAIAH, S/O BUJJAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS,R/O REGADICHELIKA, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. JAMMU KOTAIAH, S/O YELAMANDAIAH, AGED 84 YEARS, JAMMLAPALEM VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY ) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated.21-07-2025 made in E.A.No.20/ 2022 in E.P..No.02 of 2018 in O.S.No.524 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in Order in E.A.No.20/2022 in E.P..No.02 of 2018 in O.S.No.524 of 2001 dated 21-07-2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2166 OF 2025 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 21.07.2025 passed in E.A.No.20 of 2022 in E.P.No.2 of 2018 in O.S.No.524 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali, whereby the Executing Court allowed the petition directing the Station House Officer concerned to provide necessary police aid to 1st respondent herein/Decree Holder for protection of his enjoyment over the decree schedule property for the purpose of planting paddy crop. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the record goes to show that 1st respondent filed O.S.No.524 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali against the petitioner herein, respondents 2 to 4 and another, and the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2015, declaring the right of 1st respondent/plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1st respondent/plaintiff over the plaint schedule 3 properties. Thereafter, 1st respondent/Decree Holder filed E.P.No.2 of 2018, seeking to send judgment debtors 3 and 4 to civil prison, stating that the judgment debtors 3 and 4 were creating hurdles in enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by him, inspite of subsistence of decree of permanent injunction granted against them. During pendency of the E.P., the Decree Holder filed E.A.No.20 of 2022 in the said E.P., seeking to grant police aid for protection of his enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in order to plant paddy crop. The Executing Court allowed the said petition, vide the impugned order dated 21.07.2025. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor No.3 that the petitioner/judgment debtor No.3 preferred appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.524 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, along with I.A.No.9 of 2023 to condone delay of 2553 days in preferring the said appeal, and in view of the pendency of the said proceedings, the Executing Court erred in granting police aid to 1st respondent/decree holder. 4 5. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.524 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali filed by 1st respondent was decreed on 16.11.2015, declaring the right of 1st respondent/plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1st respondent/plaintiff, over the plaint schedule properties. Execution Petition No.2 of 2018 was filed by the decree holder against petitioner/judgment debtor No.3 and the judgment debtor No.4 seeking their arrest and detention in civil prison, alleging that they were obstructing the enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the decree holder. 1st respondent/ plaintiff/decree holder filed E.A.No.20 of 2022 in the said E.P., seeking to grant police aid for protection of his enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in order to plant paddy crop. Thereafter, in the year 2023, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, against the judgment and decree passed by trial Court, along with I.A.No.9 of 2023 praying to condone delay of 2553 days in preferring the appeal, and the said petition is pending. Admittedly, there is no stay of the proceedings pursuant to the decree passed by the trial 5 Court, and the decree in favour of 1st respondent/decree holder is subsisting. It is the specific case of 1st respondent/decree holder, in the affidavit filed in support of E.A.No.20 of 2022, that he raised paddy crop in the plaint schedule property, and as the same was ready for cutting, he arranged paddy cutting machine for cutting, and at that time, judgment debtors 3 and 4 came upon him and threatened him not to enter into the plaint schedule land, and in the light of subsistence of decree of permanent injunction in his favour, their acts are nothing but violation of the injunction decree. In the counter filed by petitioner in the said E.A., except general denials, there is no specific denial of the acts alleged by the decree holder. In the absence of any stay by the appellate Court and during subsistence of decree of permanent injunction, for the acts of the petitioner, 1st respondent/decree holder is entitled for police aid. Considering these aspects, the Executing Court rightly allowed the E.A. and there is no infirmity to interfere with the same. The CRP is devoid of merits. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J. 08.09.2025 DRK 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2166 OF 2025 08.09.2025