1 APHC010481982023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2383/2023 Between: 1. YANAMALA YEDUKONDALU,, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. GORSAPALEM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. YANAMALA MANGAPATNAM,, W/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED 48 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GORSAPALEM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. YANAMALA SIVAKALYAN,, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED 28 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. GORSAPALEM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. YANAMALA GANESH,, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED 26 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. GORSAPALEM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YANAMALA CHITTABBAI, S/o. Appa Rao, Aged 64 years, Cultivation, R/o. Gorsapalem Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court, against the Order dated 16.08.2023 in E.P. No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pursuant to the order dated 16.08.23023 in E.P. No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 extend the interim order in CRP.No.2383 of 2023, dated 24-11- 2023, until further orders in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the CRP before this Honourable Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in E.A.No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2008 on the file of Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/decree holder has filed O.S.No.30 of 2008 against the petitioners/judgment debtors and has obtained decree against judgment debtor–1 on 16.04.2012, for permanent injunction restraining judgment debtor–1 and his men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the decree holder over the suit schedule property. In spite of there being a decree in favour of the respondent herein, the judgment debtors i.e. the petitioners herein highhandedly entered into the suit schedule property on 04.08.2020 and planted eight coconut saplings. When the respondent herein has questioned them, he was threatened by the judgment debtors. As such, the respondent herein has filed E.P.No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2008 under Order XXI: Rule 32 of C.P.C., against the judgment debtors for violating of the decree passed in his favour and to take penal action by sending the judgment debtors to detention in civil prison. The Court below has allowed the said petition by issuing arrest warrant under Rule 32 of Order XXI of C.P.C., against the judgment debtors ordering their arrest in civil prison for a period of two (2) months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/judgment debtors have filed the present petition. 4 3. When the petition came up for hearing on 24.11.2023 this Court has stayed the operation of the proceedings in E.P.No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni for a period of six (6) weeks. Thereafter, the interim stay was extended from time to time. 4. Heard Sri. G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T. V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though the decree was passed against the 1st petitioner/1st judgment debtor only, the Court below, in the execution petition filed by the respondent has issued arrest warrants to all the judgment debtors i.e. to the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 which is illegal and arbitrary. He further argued that the petitioners have never violated the decree passed by the Court below by interfering with the property of the respondent and that the said execution petition has been filed only to harass the petitioners. Hence requested to allow the present petition by setting aside the order passed by the Court below dated 16.08.2023. 6. Admittedly, the respondent herein has filed O.S.No.30 of 2008 against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the same was decreed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A.No.27 of 2020 against the petitioners herein, alleging that they have illegally entered into suit schedule property on 04.08.2020 and 5 have planted eight coconut saplings. As such, he reported the incident to the Police and in support of the same, he relied on Ex.A1 – report dated 04.08.2020 and Ex.A2 – receipt issued by the Police. Further, the respondent herein got examined one Y. Apparao, who belongs to their village as R.W.2. 7. The petitioners, by way of a memo dated 20.11.2023 brought to the notice of this Court the chief examination affidavit of R.W.2 (neighbor of the petitioners and respondent), wherein, he deposed that he does not know the survey number in which the suit schedule property is situated and that he does not know the contents of chief affidavit. He further stated that he is not aware of the Police report filed by the decree holder vide Exs.A1 and A2. He further deposed that the judgment debtors have not entered into the suit schedule property. However, in the cross examination, R.W.2 deposed that the judgment debtor has planted the coconut trees in the fields of decree holder. 8. Though the Court below has observed that the burden lies on the respondent herein to give the details of alleged violation of decree and that except Exs.A1 and A2, the respondent did not file any proof to show such particulars of violation, but, however solely relied on the statement deposed by R.W.2 that the judgment debtor has planted coconut trees in the suit schedule property. It can be seen that, nothing adverse has been elicited from R.W.2 which indicates that the judgment debtors have violated the decree passed in favour of the respondent herein. In such a case, the Court below, should not have issued arrest warrants against the petitioners herein under 6 Rule 32 of Order XXI of C.P.C. and should not have ordered their arrest in civil prison for a period of two (2) months. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni in E.P.No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2008 is hereby set-aside. However, the respondent/decree holder is at liberty to approach the Court below with sufficient material to prove his case, if at all he finds the petitioners herein violating the decree. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 14.08.2025 GSS