APHC010446252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0.2500 OF 2025 Between: Jakkam Subramanyam, S/o.Late J.Narsaiah, Aged 65 years, R/o.44, Pillarikuppam Village, Marripalle Post, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. G.Ekambara Reddy, S/o.G.Narasimha, Aged 48 years, R/o.44, Pillarikuppam Village, Maripalle Post, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, and four others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Siva Nagarjuna Sidharapu Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.G.Mahesh Devan 2 CRP_2500_2025 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 02.5.2025 in E.P. No.39 of 2019 in O.S. No.137 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puttur. 2. The petitioner herein–the Decree Holder filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur by judgment dated 30.12.2016 decreed the suit as the respondents/defendants remained ex parte. Seeking execution of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the above said Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to send the Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 3 to civil prison for their willful disobedience of the decree dated 30.12.2016. The respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor No.1 filed the counter in the said E.P., and the same was adopted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3/Judgment Debtor Nos.2 and 3. The learned Executing Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the E.P., against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that the learned Executing Court went wrong in dismissing the E.P., without appreciating the matter in the correct perspective. He submits that in the light of the evidence on record i.e., the statements of R.Ws.1 to 3, to verify whether the shed is erected in the E.P. Schedule property, an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner for filing an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, instead of dismissing the petition in question. He submits that by giving such an opportunity, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/Judgment Debtors and in fact, it would help the Court to arrive at a just conclusion in 3 CRP_2500_2025 the matter. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/Judgment Debtors made submissions to sustain the impugned order. He submits that the allegation that the respondents have violated the judgment and decree, is not correct and the petitioner having failed to prove such a violation, is unnecessarily dragging on the matter. He also submits that seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, the respondents/ Judgment Debtors have not filed any application. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the only point that arises for determination is: Whether the order under challenge is liable to be interfered with, in the facts and circumstances of the case? Point: 6. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that the petition in question was filed mainly on the premise that the respondents/Judgment Debtors have trespassed into the suit schedule property and violated the permanent injunction orders. An allegation was also made to the effect that the respondents/Judgment Debtors made attempts to raise a shed in the suit schedule property. The petition is resisted by the respondents/ Judgment Debtors by filing a counter. Except mere allegation, no material appears to have been placed before the Executing Court to substantiate that the respondents/Judgment Debtors have disobeyed/ violated the judgment and decree, more specifically by making some construction / raising a shed in the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances, the view taken by the Executing Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be found fault with. 4 CRP_2500_2025 7. In so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before dismissing the petition in question, at least an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner/Decree Holder to file an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is concerned, the same merits no appreciation. It is for the Decree Holder to prove the allegations of violation of the decree granted in his favour. Be that as it may. Mere dismissal of the Execution Petition in question would not come in the way of the petitioner/Decree Holder to file appropriate application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report with regard to the alleged construction or trespass into the suit schedule property. If the petitioner/Decree Holder adopts such a course of action, the learned Executing Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations in the order under revision. 8. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J February 27, 2026 vasu