JUDGMENT : 1. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.114 of 2011 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, against the petitioner and the 5th respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 05.11.2011 and the decree is said to have become final. The respondents 1 to 4 filed E.P.No.24 of 2012, under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, with a prayer to send the petitioner and the 5th respondent to civil prison on the ground that they violated the decree for perpetual injunction. It was pleaded that the petitioner brought into existence a structure over the suit schedule property, part of a plot of 377 square yards of site. 2. The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations. He stated that he is not at all concerned with the so-called structure and that he did not make it. The executing Court partly allowed the E.P. directing that the petitioner be sent to civil prison. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition. 3. Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the petitioner stated that he did not make any structure and that he is not concerned with it, the executing Court ought to have simply dismissed the E.P. He contends that just on the basis of certain suggestions made in the cross-examination, the E.P. was allowed. He further submits that even according to the respondents 1 to 4, there are disputes with one Sri Paradesi Naidu in relation to the suit schedule property. 4. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, who filed caveat, on the other hand, submits that on one hand, the petitioner stated that he is not concerned with the suit schedule property or the structure made thereon, but on the other hand, he went on doubting the very right of the respondents 1 to 4 over the suit schedule property. 5. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has figured as defendant No.2 in the suit and the decree passed therein became final. If the petitioner had violated the decree for perpetual injunction, he is certainly liable to be punished. 6. 5. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has figured as defendant No.2 in the suit and the decree passed therein became final. If the petitioner had violated the decree for perpetual injunction, he is certainly liable to be punished. 6. In his counter filed in the E.P., the petitioner stated that he did not involve in any illegal or unlawful acts and violate the decree, much less caused any obstructions to the respondents 1 to 4. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner repeated the same. To be precise, his statement is as under: “I submit that we never interfere with the E.P. schedule property in any manner and we are nothing to do it. The D.Hrs filed the E.P. creating evidence to harass us though they have knowledge that one Paradesi Naidu purchased the E.P. schedule property and that he is making constructions. After filing the E.P. we made enquiries. Then only, we came to know that M. Paradesi Naidu making constructions.” Once the petitioner stated as above, the Executing Court ought to have dismissed the E.P. leaving it open to the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the structure, if any, that is existing over the schedule property. However, by presuming that the petitioner is behind one Mr. Paradesi Naidu in bringing into existence the structure, the Executing Court allowed the E.P. The order passed by the Executing Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is made it clear that the petitioner shall not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the respondents 1 to 4 and it shall be open to the latter to remove the structure, which is said to have been made upon the suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this civil revision petition shall stand disposed of.