Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Madu Venkateswara Rao vs Veduri Ammajipeduri Ammaji on 25 October, 2024
APHC010721462013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4518/2013
Between:
Madu Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Veduri Ammajipeduri Ammaji ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. M L ALI
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.4518 of 2013
ORDER:
The present revision is filed against the order dated 25.04.2013 in E.P.No.118 of 2011 in O.S.No.601 of 2008 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District passed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor. The suit was filed in the year 2008 by the Respondent/decree holder seeking for permanent injunction against the Petitioner from interfering with the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.03.2009. Thereafter, the Respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.118 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C., alleging violation of the decree of permanent injunction by the Petitioner/defendant.
3. On receipt of notice, the Petitioner/defendant filed counter contending that he had not intentionally disobeyed the orders of the Hon'ble Court as he had no knowledge about the ex parte decree. It was further contended that the Petitioner/ judgment 3 debtor's wife along with others were granted patta in the year January, 2008 with possession and as such, they continued to remain in possession of the suit schedule property.
4. It was pleaded that W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was filed before this Court by some third parties questioning the cancellation of assignment of pattas dated 20.6.1999 in Sy.No.9/4 of T.Gokavaram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District and this Court had passed interim order on 04.02.2008 restraining the Respondents i.e. the District Collector and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the assigned land in favour of the Petitioners therein without due process of law and notice. It was pleaded that in the said writ petition, the Tahsildar of Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District had filed counter pleading that the pattas said to have been issued on 20.06.1999 in favour of the Petitioners therein by the then Mandal Revenue Officer are forged and fabricated.
5. It was also contended at para 10 of the counter of the Tahsildar in the writ petition that even before the interim order in W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was passed as mentioned above, the pattas in the said survey number were distributed to eligible 4 beneficiaries after due enquiry on 19.01.2008 and that the said beneficiaries are in possession of their respective extents in Sy.No.9/4 of T.Gokavaram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District.
6. The Petitioner/defendant also contended that the assignees of land in January, 2008 had formed into a society by name Maganti Ravindranadh Chowdary Farmers Welfare Society and filed W.P.No.21214 of 2008 before this Court seeking to declare the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of land assigned to 135 members as illegal and arbitrary. This Court on 26.09.2008 directed that status quo as on date shall be maintained pending further orders after taking note of the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.1938 of 2008.
7. In the enquiry before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the Respondent/decree holder and R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the Petitioner/defendant. The Petitioner/defendants also marked Ex.B.1 i.e. D.Form patta dated 19.01.2008 and Ex.B.2 Title deed.
8. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and after referring to the writ petitions and the interim 5 orders granted by this Court held that the Petitioners are not parties to W.P.No.1938 of 2008 and W.P.No.21214 of 2008, and that the Petitioner did not choose to mark the those documents as exhibits. Further, the trial Court opined that in execution, it cannot go beyond a decree and allowed the E.P. and directed arrest warrant against Petitioner/judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Hence, the present revision is filed.
9. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
10. The P.W.1/Respondent/plaintiff had deposed that the Petitioners are constantly quarreling and trying to interfere with the plaint schedule property. P.W.2 deposed that Mandal Revenue Officer had granted patta in favour of P.W.1/decree holder on 20.06.1999 with regard to petition schedule property and Petitioner/ judgment debtor is trying to dispossess the Respondent/ plaintiff from the schedule property. R.W.1/Petitioner herein deposes that his wife was granted patta in January, 2008 and the same was reiterated by R.W.3.
11. The W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was filed by persons alleging dispossession from the lands assigned to them on 20.6.1999. 6 The Respondent/Plaintiff is similarly placed as Writ petitioners in W.P.No.1938 of 2008 as his claim is also based on patta granted on 20.06.1999. In the Counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in W.P.No.1938 of 2008, it was pleaded that no pattas that were granted in the year 1999 and the copies of patta therein are forged and fabricated. At paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that on 19.01.2008, pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries and that they are in possession of the respective extents.
12. Apart from the stand taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the counter affidavit, This Court in W.P.No.21214 of 2008 filed by the beneficiaries of patta said to have been granted on 19.06.2008 passed the following order:
'The Petitioner averred that in pursuance of the order said to have been granted in WP.No.1938 of 2008 by this Court, it's possession is sought to be disturbed.
Having considered the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, status quo as on today shall be maintained pending further orders. Ordered accordingly.'
13. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. 7
14. From the above, it is apparent that there is a serious dispute with regard to the patta said to have been issued to Respondent/Plaintiff on 20.06.1999 and his possession over the scheduled property since January, 2008. On the contrary, there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the patta in favour of the wife of the petitioner on 20.1.2008 (Ex.B.1), but the dispute is only with regard to the validity of the patta. In addition to the above, is the status-quo order of this Court in W.P.No.21214 of 2008 filed by the society of beneficiaries who were granted patta on 19.01.2008.
15. For a person to be held guilty of violation of the decree of permanent injunction, the same should be willful and this is apparent on a reading of the Rule itself. The Order 21 Rule 32 CPC reads as under;
Rule 32(1). Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.:
Where the party against whom a decree for the 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 wilfully 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.8
16. The highlighted portion of the Rule makes it apparent that the requirement of willful disobedience is a condition precedent for exercise of power under this Rule. As the penal consequence is provided under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, willful violation which is akin to mens rea needs to be established.
17. The trial Court did not consider this aspect and without recording any finding regarding willful violation, passed impugned order of arrest. Apart from that the trial Court ignored the fact that this Court seized the issue with regard to the genuineness of patta of the Respondent/plaintiff on 20.6.1999 and possession of the Respondent/Plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the validity of the patta in favor of the wife of the petitioner in the writ petitions referred supra.
18. Therefore, the orders of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the civil revision petition is allowed. However, it is left open to the Respondent//decree holder to file an appropriate application subject to the outcome of above mentioned Writ Petitions pending before this Court. No order as to costs. 9
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.10.2024 KLP