APHC010104632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 704/2025 Between: Pasupleti Gopala Swami ...PETITIONER AND Bathula Ramadevi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: RNT, J CRP No.704 of 2025 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 704 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri M. R. K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 3. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.4 of 2016 for permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property, which was decreed. Alleging violation of the decree of injunction, the plaintiff/1st respondent filed E.P.No.106 of 2023 pending in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tiruvuru, impleading the petitioner also as one of the judgment debtors at serial No.3. The Execution Court has issued fresh warrant of arrest on 27.08.2024 against the judgment debtors, including the petitioner. 4. Challenging the issuance of the warrant against the petitioner vide docket proceedings dated 27.08.2024, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not party to the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2016. There is no decree against the petitioner. He has been wrongly impleaded as 3rd judgment debtor. Referring to the Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, he submits that a decree for an injunction can be enforced in execution proceedings by detention of the judgment debtors, if the decree is RNT, J CRP No.704 of 2025 3 against the party. Since the petitioner was not party to the suit/decree, the execution Court could not issue warrant against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Considering the nature of the dispute as raised in this civil revision petition and for the Order proposed to be passed, the Court dispenses with the notice of this petition to the respondents. 8. Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) reads as under: “Order 21, Rule 32 (1) "Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it. The decree may be enforced (in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction) by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.” 9. However, the petitioner has not filed the copies of the plaint, judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 2016 to demonstrate that the petitioner was not party. The decree holder in his execution petition stated that the petitioner also violated the decree of permanent injunction. Since the copy of the decree has not been filed, it cannot be determined by this Court, at this stage as to whether the permanent injunction, was granted against the petitioner or not, or he would also be covered, considering the terms of the decree. RNT, J CRP No.704 of 2025 4 10. Section 50 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with for execution of decree, against the legal representatives as well in case of death of judgment debtor before the decree is fully satisfied to a limited extent. So, whether the decree is executable against the present petitioner or not can be very well considered by the execution Court, considering the objections raised by the petitioner. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the civil revision petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Execution Court by filing appropriate application stating his case as also for recalling of the warrant issued against him before the said Court, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, and if any such application is so filed, the Execution Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon taking into account the decree as passed and the legal provisions, in accordance with law, within a further period of one month, with due opportunity of hearing to the respondent/decree holder. 12. Right to life and personal liberty is basic human rights. Every person has a fundamental right not to be deprived of his life and personal liberty save by authority of law guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Till passing of an order by the Execution Court, as aforesaid, the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned docket proceedings dated 27.08.2024 and the warrant issued. 14. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment. 15. It is clarified that this Order is confined to the petitioner only. RNT, J CRP No.704 of 2025 5 16. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 04.04.2025 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in one week. B/o Dsr