Judgment :- Challenging an order of rejection of the E.P. which remained unnumbered, filed by the decree holder in O.S.No.5848/97 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, the decree holder has brought forth this revision before this Court. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who made his sincere attempt of assailing the order. 3. After going through the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, this Court is of the opinion that the revision does not require even an admission by this Court, nor even notice is necessary to the opposite party. 4. Concededly, it was a suit for simplicitor injunction stating that the petitioner was in possession; that there was an interference in his possession unlawfully, and hence, the defendant should be injuncted by way of a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. After the decree was passed in O.S.No.5848/97, the present E.P. was laid whereby the petitioner asked for the removal of the wall alleged to have been constructed by the judgment debtor at the middle of the plaintiffs vacant land on the northern side of the plaintiffs house, and also for restoration of the asbestos shed extending upto the southern wall of the defendants house which was pulled down by the judgment debtor by disobeying the decree of that Court. 5. It is pertinent to point out that the very reading of the prayer what was found in the execution petition, would indicate that what was required in the E.P. for execution was a mandatory injunction. Now, at this juncture, it remains to be stated that it was originally a suit for permanent injunction, and it was also decreed. Not even an affidavit was filed alleging when the wall was constructed by the judgment debtor, and when the asbestos shed of the plaintiff was removed. There was nothing to indicate so. According to the petitioner, there was disobedience of the decree of the Court below. But, what were the circumstances were not made known to the Court. Hence, the lower Court was perfectly correct in rejecting the petition as not maintainable. Nothing requires interference. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.