APHC010048262020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 345/2020 Between: Chodey Venkatrao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Medisetti Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.345 of 2020 O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 27.12.2019 in E.P.No.25 of 2015 in O.S.No.391 of 2004 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, East Godavari District. 2. The Petitioners are the decree holders. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents/judgment debtors from constructing bathroom and lavatory in the ‘P’ marked property and restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 13.03.2013. 3. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed E.P.No.25 of 2015 seeking to send the Respondents to civil prison for violation of judgment and decree. In the application filed by the Petitioners, it was contended that in the month of May, 2013, the Respondents/ judgment debtors have high-handedly and unauthorizedly constructed a sun shade on the western wall to a width of 1 ½ feet running from North to South projecting 3 into their property even though they do not have any right to make such constructions. 4. The Respondents/Judgment debtors filed their counter denying the allegation and contended that the application cannot be maintained since the E.P was filed on 28.04.2015 though the alleged violation pertains to May, 2013. It was contended that the Respondents had constructed the suit house 30 years back and had never encroached the property of the decree holders. 5. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner in E.A.No.95 of 2016, to note down the length of the projections of the slab, height and also sunshades to the building of the Respondents/judgment debtors and also point out the age of the said projections with the help of a qualified surveyor and also an experienced R&B Engineer. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report enclosing the observation report of a licensed Engineer. 6. In the trial, a detailed enquiry was conducted and P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked on behalf of the Petitioners and for Respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.C1 Commissioner report was marked. 4 7. Taking into consideration the respective submissions and the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the trial Court had dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the violation is not made out. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 8. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the trial Court had committed an error in not properly appreciating the factum of violation. Learned counsel pointed out to various portions of the Advocate Commissioner report and the Licensed Engineer's report enclosing thereto. 10. The counsel for the Respondents also contended that there was no violation at any point of time and the building along with sunshades was constructed 30 years back. 11. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that to punish an individual under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC., proof beyond doubt need to be established as there are penal consequences thereto. The substantive reliance made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on the Advocate Commissioner report does not show any 5 projections of the sunshade in the property of the Petitioners. Further, the Engineer, who had visited the schedule premises along with the Advocate Commissioner was examined as R.W.4. In his deposition, as R.W.4 stated that, on physical verification, it is his opinion that the building was constructed about 30 years back. 12. Considering that there is no positive evidence to establish violation by the Respondents, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 13. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 28.01.2025 KLP