Marella Rajendra Prasad, v. Marella Narayana Swamy (Died)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRP No.913 of 2012 Date:13.04.2016 Between:

Marella Rajendra Prasad ... Petitioner.

AND Marella Narayana Swamy (died) and others.

...Respondents.

The Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRP No.913 of 2012 ORDER:

This revision is preferred questioning order dated 19-01-2012 in E.P.No.544/2006 in O.S.No.616/2002 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. Respondent herein filed the above referred E.P.No.544/2006 contending that the revision petitioner herein violated the injunction decree granted in O.S.No.616/2002 and requested the Court to punish him for the said violation. The Executing Court examined witnesses on behalf of both sides and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence held that the revision petitioner herein has violated the injunction decree and liable for punishment and accordingly ordered committal of the revision petitioner to civil prison for a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Admittedly, both revision petitioner and respondents are related to each other and at the time of hearing this revision, the revision petitioner filed an undertaking affidavit stating that he will not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner and requested this Court to close the E.P., proceedings by recording his undertaking. As seen from the record, the committal order passed against the revision petitioner was suspended by this Court by interim order dated 01-03-2012. Now as seen from the affidavit filed on behalf of the revision petitioner, it appears petitioner has realised the mistake and gave undertaking that he will not interfere further with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Since both parties are related, I feel that his undertaking can be accepted and instead of sending him to jail by warning the petitioner, order of the lower Court can be modified.

5. Considering the relationship between the parties and the unconditional undertaking given by the revision petitioner, I am of the view that the same can be accepted and the impugned order of detention can be set aside by recording the undertaking given by the revision petitioner. However, it is made clear if petitioner violates the undertaking given here, he has to face serious consequences and there shall not be any mercy in imposing punishment.

6. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand disposed of.

__________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Date:13.04.2016 mrb