JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition is filed against an order made in E.A.No.361/2012 in E.P.No.70/2012 in O.S.No.40/2010 dated 07.02.2013 whereby the Executing Court ordered arrest of the petitioners herein for not having complied with the orders passed by the court below dated 27.02.2009 and 10.10.2012. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for either side. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have complied with the order of the court below by removing the encroachment on 15.10.2012 and the first respondent herein has also given a letter indicating that the decree passed in O.S.No.40/2010 has been complied with. Therefore, he submits that the order of arrest passed by the court below without reference to the said fact cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/decree holder submitted that though the petitioners have complied with the order, the same came to be made only subsequent to the filing of the E.A.No.361/2012 and therefore, the order passed by the court below need not be interfered with. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the court below dated 07.02.2013 would show that the petitioners herein as respondents 1 to 5 were not present on the said day and they were set exparte. Consequently, the court below allowed the E.A. by observing that the respondents have not complied with the direction issued by the court to remove the encroachment. 6. No doubt, the petitioners herein as respondents 1 to 5 therein were absent and not placed the fact before the Court with regard to the removal of encroachment on 15.10.2012. But on the other hand, the first respondent should have, in all fairness, brought to the notice of the court about the removal of the encroachment made on 15.10.2012. As the said fact was not placed before the Court by either parties, it came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not complied with the direction and consequently, ordered arrest. 7. Now, as it is admitted that the encroachment was removed on 15.02.2010 itself, much before passing the impugned order, I find that the order of arrest passed against these petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said order dated 07.02.2013 passed in E.A.No.361 of 2012 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. 8. 7. Now, as it is admitted that the encroachment was removed on 15.02.2010 itself, much before passing the impugned order, I find that the order of arrest passed against these petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said order dated 07.02.2013 passed in E.A.No.361 of 2012 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent however submitted that while removing the encroachment, a portion of the property of the first respondent was also removed by the petitioners and therefore, liberty may be given to the first respondent to agitate against such action. 9. The issue before this court is only with regard to the order passed in E.A.No.361 of 2012 in ordering arrest of the petitioners on the ground that they have violated the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.40 of 2010. As it is admitted by the parties that the petitioners have already complied with the direction issued by the court below, I am inclined to allow this civil revision petition. If the first respondent has got any other grievance as contended by the counsel before this court, it is certainly a different cause of action for him to agitate separately if he is otherwise entitled to under law and this court need not give any liberty for the same. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.