APHC010499262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the sixth day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No Between: Prakash Chand and others and D. Suvarna Lakshmi and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. P. Rajasekhar Counsel for the respondents: 1. S. V. Ruthvik The Court made the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the sixth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Nos.2766 of 2024 and 1424 of 2025 Prakash Chand and others ...Petitioners D. Suvarna Lakshmi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the sixth day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi and 1424 of 2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024 is filed by the judgment debtors Nos.3, 6 & 7 against the order, dated 21.10.2024, partly allowing E.P.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.191 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. C.R.P.No.1424 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 05.05.2025, passed in E.P.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.191 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 3. The docket order, dated 05.05.2025, reads as follows: “The Hon’ble High Court granted stay vide order, dt.19.11.2024 in C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024, further the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. has extended the stay order till 19.02.2025. Counsel for J.Dr. No.3, 6 and 7 not filed further stay extension order from 19.02.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. till today. Hence treated as no stay. Issue arrest warrant against J.Dr. U/Order 21 Rule 32(1) and rule 32(5) C.P.C. on payment of process. Call on 20-06-2025.” 4. Since both these revisions are interconnected, they are heard together and are being disposed of together by way of this common order. Since the decision to be taken in C.R.P.No.1424 of 2025 is consequential to the order to be passed in C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024, C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024 is taken up first. 5. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtor (J.Dr.) Nos.3, 6 & 7. The 1st respondent is the decree holder (D.Hr.) and the respondents Nos.3 to 6 are J.Dr. Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 6. The respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.39 of 2014 under Order XXI, Rules 32(1) and 32(5) of C.P.C. seeking arrest and detention of the J.Drs. in civil prison for violation of the decree, dated 17.12.1998, in O.S.No.191 of 1991 as modified by the decree in appeal in A.S.No.20 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, on 27.08.2001 and S.A.No.456 of 2002, dated 28.11.2007, on the file of this High Court. 7. The decree passed in O.S.No.191 of 1991 reads as follows: “i) That the defendant Sangham and its men be and they are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from draining any sullage or waste water into the suit rastha shown as ABCDEF R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 GZYHIJKLMNOPQR in the plaint plan; ii) That the defendant sangham be and they are hereby directed to remove and close down the gutter shown as KLMS and to remove the drainage pipe shown as ‘VW’ in the plaint plan within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to get the same removed through the process of the Court; iii) That the suit in respect of the other 3 reliefs of mandatory injunctions be and they are hereby dismissed; and iv) That each party do bear their own costs.” b. The decree passed by the appellate Court as confirmed by this Court reads as follows: 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 “1) That the Appeal be, and the same hereby partly allowed; 2) The Judgment and decree of the lower court in respect of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove gutter and pipe, KLM and VW shown in the plaint plan, be and the same hereby confirmed; 3) That the defendant and its men be, and are hereby permanently restrained from making any constructions in the common site which affects the right of reasonable use of the same by the plaintiff, and 4) That there be no costs.” 8. The case of the D.Hr. is briefly as follows: All the respondents represent and manage Swethambar Murthy Pujak Jain Sangham and its properties. When the suit was filed, there was a chalivendram shown as QQ1R7R to the east of the eastern wall at the entrance of the common rastha as shown in the plaint plan and also in the plan submitted by the commissioner. The respondents shifted it to the west of the eastern wall into the common rastha obstructing passage and entry into the common rastha and also causing obstruction to the access to the main public road on southern side. Further, the respondents violated the decree and encroached into the common rastha by raising a farm leaf shed and running chalivendram inside it. Nextly, at the entrance in the common rastha from the public road, there was a normal slope connecting to the main road for free access and passage of bullock carts carrying loads to the three godowns of the D.Hr. having common door No.18/177. The floor of the slope at the entrance was damaged by the respondents by placing two steps at the entrance and placing a slab slope in between two steps to 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 enable scooters, motorbikes etc moving on it. Therefore, this unauthorised construction is to be removed and the passage is to be restored in its original condition. As per the decree, the respondents and their men are restrained from making any constructions affecting the use of original rastha. In the plaint plan, the common rastha is described as ABCDEFYR1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6, GZYHIJKLMNOPQR. The measurements of the rastha were also given in the plaint plan and the plan submitted by the commissioner. The width of the common rastha is not uniform. As per the report of the commissioner, at point No.6 in front of D.No.18-185, there were two steps of width of 2.10 feet on the western side. Now, the respondents extended the steps both east to west and north to south at the time of filing the suit. The two steps were in front of point ‘D’ by side of point ‘W’ on southern side. Now, it is at the place of point ‘D’ by the side of point ‘H’ (on northern side). Originally, there were no steps. The steps at point ‘D’ are now extended northwise and the steps on east to west are extended encroaching into the common rastha reducing the width of rastha between 18/178 and 18/185 from 17.6 feet to 15.2 feet. Thus, there is an encroachment of 2.4 feet into the rastha due to construction of three extra steps. These three steps have to be removed through process of Court. 9. Counter was filed by the respondents Nos.3 & 6 and the same was adopted by respondent No.7. The J.Drs. 3 & 6 in their counter denied the allegation in the affidavit and further stated that the entire area of the slope at the entrance of common rastha upto the road covering municipal channel was restored by the Municipal Corporation about a week before filing the counter and that the J.Drs. had not made any constructions by encroaching into the rastha. It is further stated that 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 the plaint plan shows steps at Door No.18/185, 18/186 and 18/187 and the width of these steps is 3 feet to 2.9 feet. It is also stated that the trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to mandatory injunction for removal of those slopes and the appellate Court prohibited construction in the site. It is further stated that the Swethambar Murthy Pujak Seva Sangh is a society. The J.Drs. contended that the execution petition is time barred. The J.Dr. Nos.1, 2 and 4 were set ex parte. The notice sent to the respondent No.5 was returned unserved as died, and therefore, the execution petition against the respondent No.5 was dismissed as abated. 10. On behalf of D.Hr., P.W1 / D.Hr. was examined and further another witness was examined as P.W.2. The D.Hrs. filed exhibits P1 to P5 through PW1. Exhibits C1 to C5 were marked through P.W.2. On behalf of the J.Drs., J.Dr.No.6 was examined as R.W.1 and exhibits R1 to R4 were marked. 11. After hearing both the sides and receiving written arguments, the execution Court partly allowed the execution petition for violation of the decree by construction of three rows of steps with napa stones containing already existing rows of steps made of marble stones connecting to the common rastha and causing obstruction to the D.Hr. for reasonable use of common rastha and thereby, arrest and detention of the J.Drs. in civil prison for three months was ordered. The execution petition was partly dismissed with regard to removal of thatty shed and chalivendram inside the shed and removal of two steps at the entrance of the common rastha by putting a slab slope, since they were already removed by the Municipal Corporation. 7 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 12. In the revision petition, the main contention of the petitioners is that there is no absolute bar for raising any construction in the rastha as per the decree passed by the appellate Court, because one can use the existing steps in front of the temple only with the help of three steps to get down to the road and moreover, the D.Hr. is entitled only for a reasonable use of rastha and the J.Drs. are not absolutely prevented from making any reasonable construction. 13. On the other hand, the D.Hr. contends that the construction of three steps which lead to reduction in the width of rastha from 17.6 feet to 15.2 feet is in violation of the decree and therefore, the execution Court rightly allowed the petition. 14. The decree as it speaks indicates that the D.Hr. is entitled to reasonable use of rastha and makes it further clear that there is no express direction in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the J.Drs. from making use of the rastha so long as it does not cause obstruction for reasonable use of the rastha by the D.Hr. Admittedly, the three steps were constructed in the rastha. Before construction of these three steps, there were already some more steps from the temple to reach the road. In fact, without these three steps, no one coming from out of the temple can step on to the rastha. Therefore, they are incidental to the use of the steps in existence. The D.Hr. has not placed any evidence to show that three steps newly constructed are causing obstruction in any manner for the reasonable use of the rastha at the point of steps constructed. That apart, there is no evidence that there has been any inconvenience in using the rastha by the D.Hr. since the date of construction of these steps till date. The photographs clearly show that the steps newly constructed are not in any manner causing obstruction in the rastha for the vehicular movement. Merely because a 8 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 construction was made by raising three steps, it cannot be ipso facto a violation of the decree in the present case. The D.Hr. is entitled to seek enforcement of the decree only when there is obstruction for reasonable use of the rastha. As such, just because three steps were constructed, the D.Hr. cannot contend that there is violation of the decree. The relief of arrest and detention of J.Drs. in civil prison is akin to penal action of punishment. Therefore, unlike in a civil case, one cannot succeed on proof by mere preponderance of probabilities. A little higher degree of proof is required for imposing punishment as it is intrusion into the life and liberty of an individual. Since the relief of arrest and detention of J.Drs. in civil prison is a harsh remedy interfering with personal life and liberty of an individual, specific proof as to which J.Dr., out of several J.Drs., is liable for violation is also necessary, but, there is no such allegation or evidence. There cannot be a sweeping and generalised allegation against all the J.Drs. merely because they are dealing with issues of the temple as members of the managing trust. 15. In the present case, since there is no proof that the construction of the steps lead to inconvenience for the reasonable use of the rastha by the D.Hr., no case is made out by the D.Hr. to execute the decree against the J.Drs. by their arrest and detention in civil prison. 16. In the result, C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024 is allowed. Consequently, the order, dated 21.10.2024, passed in E.P.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.191 of 1991 partly allowing the execution petition and directing arrest and detention of the J.Drs. in civil prison for a period of three months is set aside and E.P.No.39 of 2014 is dismissed. 17. As a sequel to the dismissal of E.P.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.191 of 1991, C.R.P.No.1424 of 2025 shall automatically stand allowed. 9 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2766 of 2024 & 1424 of 2025 Consequently, the docket order, dated 05.05.2025, passed in E.P.No.39 of 2014 issuing warrant for arrest and detention of the J.Drs. is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 06-10-2025 RAR