ORDER S.V. Bhatt, J. 1. The judgment debtor in E.P. No. 26 of 2013 in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, is the revision petitioner. 2. Through the impugned order, the executing Court ordered for arrest and detention of the revision petitioner in civil prison for a period of two months for violation of the perpetual injunction decree and judgment in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. 3. The execution petition is taken out under Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. 4. The respondents filed O.S. No. 116 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam for the relief of perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner herein. The suit schedule is as follows: A schedule property Agrl. Dry land to an extent of about Acs. 1-12 gts in Sy. No. 59 of Dhamslapuram Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District is situate within the following boundaries: East: Land of Kurapati Narayana West: Land of K.P. Dayamani (D.Hr. No. 2/Plaintiff No. 2 B schedule property & Konakanchi Rambabu. North: Land of Jabbisetty Papa Rao South: Land of Maduri Srinivasa Rao B schedule property Agrl. Dry land to an extent of about Acs. 0-20 gts in Sy. No. 59 of Dhamslapuram Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District is situate within the following boundaries: East: A schedule property of 1st plaintiff West: Land of Konakanchi Rambabu North: A schedule property of 1st plaintiff South: Land of Maduri Srinivasa Rao 5. Through the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2012, the suit was decreed as prayed for. 6. On 06.02.2013, the respondents filed the present EP complaining disobedience of the perpetual injunction decree dated 29.06.2012 in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 by the revision petitioner. 7. The averments on disobedience are that the revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 166 of 2012 for perpetual injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure all the adjoining survey numbers of Sy. No. 59. The survey of neighbouring survey numbers through commission is requested to fix the boundaries of Sy. No. 55 of an extent of Acs. 36-00. The learned Senior Civil Judge through order dated 17.12.2012 allowed the petition filed by the revision petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. No. 59. The survey of neighbouring survey numbers through commission is requested to fix the boundaries of Sy. No. 55 of an extent of Acs. 36-00. The learned Senior Civil Judge through order dated 17.12.2012 allowed the petition filed by the revision petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The learned Senior Civil Judge specifically while accepting the prayer for commission directed the Advocate Commissioner as follows: The Advocate Commissioner to take the assistance of Director, Survey and Land Records and take the assistance of revenue people to fix boundaries to the petition schedule property (item 1) which is Acs. 36-00 in Sy. No. 55. He is further directed not to measure the respondents schedule mentioned in the petition because there were already decrees and judgments in favour of the respondents. 8. It is in this background the complaint of respondents is that the Advocate-Commissioner and judgment debtor bulldozed their way into plaint schedule in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 with the help of Khammam Urban Police and have broken the southern fence of E.P. schedule property and removed white coloured poles planted all along the suit schedule property on southern boundary and put new poles with different shades. The said act of forcible trespass etc., amounts to criminal trespass against the perpetual injunction granted in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 and the restriction imposed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012. To evidence breach of injunction decree and pulling down the poles etc., the respondents filed photographs of demolished poles etc. Hence, the prayer for executing the decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 and committing the revision petitioner to civil prison under Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. 9. The revision petitioner filed counter denying the material averments on violation of perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. The revision petitioner admits filing of O.S. No. 166 of 2012 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge for perpetual injunction and also I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 in O.S. No. 166 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to survey. It is conveniently averred that the Advocate Commissioner with the help of Assistant Director conducted survey and fixed the boundary stones in Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 concerns Sy. No. 59 of Dhamslapuram Village. It is conveniently averred that the Advocate Commissioner with the help of Assistant Director conducted survey and fixed the boundary stones in Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 concerns Sy. No. 59 of Dhamslapuram Village. The revision petitioner neither interfered nor trespassed into Sy. No. 59 at any point of time. The survey conducted is covered by Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village. A counter allegation against respondents is made that under the garb of decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011, the respondents are grabbing the judgment debtors property. 10. It is relevant to notice that the revision petitioner has not disputed or denied the restriction imposed by the Senior Civil Judge in executing the Commissioner warrant viz., not to interfere with the property protected in favour of respondents by a decree of the Court. The revision petitioner does not categorically deny the averment that with the help of police, the Advocate-Commissioner, decree holders and others have bulldozed into the petition lands and damaged the pillars. The change of physical features brought on record are not disputed or whether by conducting survey the area covered and protected by decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 is interfered with or disturbed. At best, the revision petitioner tries to explain that the survey was confined to Sy. No. 55, but not Sy. No. 59 and in the entire exercise, identity of Sy. No. 55 is established. 11. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents and R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of revision petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Exs. P-1 to P-4 were marked and Exs. C-1 to C-3 were marked through Court. 12. The executing Court upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence prima facie found that there is disobedience of the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 and as noted above directed arrest and detention of revision petitioner in civil prison for two months and restitution under Section 144 of C.P.C. Hence, the revision. 13. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that through order in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012, the Advocate-Commissioner/R.W. 2 with the help of Surveyor has conducted the survey and fixed boundaries of Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram. 13. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that through order in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012, the Advocate-Commissioner/R.W. 2 with the help of Surveyor has conducted the survey and fixed boundaries of Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram. In the report filed by the Advocate-Commissioner, it is firstly contended that the portion of land now stated to have been trespassed by the revision petitioner is covered by Sy. No. 55, but not Sy. No. 59. The respondents herein field objections to the report of Advocate-Commissioner and the same is pending consideration in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012. When the matter is pending consideration on the objections filed by the respondents herein, committing the revision petitioner to civil prison amounts to illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further urge that the burden is very heavy on the D.Hrs./respondents to prove disobedience of perpetual injunction decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. In the case on hand, there is hardly any evidence discharging the burden of proving willful disobedience of the injunction granted by the Court. The findings of the executing Court are not conclusive. If at all anything has happened, it is at the hands of Advocate Commissioner in implementing the Commissioner warrant issued in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 and the executing Court instead of pronouncing orders in EP ought to have deferred the hearing till the dispute is resolved in O.S. No. 166 of 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 has not become final and appeal is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge. He places strong reliance on the decisions reported in Ram Nath v. Smt. Tapesara and others and Surinder Kumar and another v. Ishwar Dayal and another in support of his contentions that there are changed circumstances and the EP is not executable. 14. Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondents, submits that the suit in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 is filed for perpetual injunction for the property described with sufficient definiteness by way of survey number and also the boundaries on all four sides. 14. Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondents, submits that the suit in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 is filed for perpetual injunction for the property described with sufficient definiteness by way of survey number and also the boundaries on all four sides. The disobedience complained in the present case is that in spite of appropriate order by the Senior Civil Judge in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 not to take up survey of land which is protected by a decree in favour of respondents herein, the revision petitioner with the help of police, revenue officials and in the presence of the Advocate-Commissioner trespassed into the property in Sy. No. 59, which is protected by way of injunction in favour of respondents. Through final judgment in O.S. No. 116 of 2011, the learned counsel argues that the property described by boundaries is covered by Sy. No. 59, but not Sy. No. 55. As against the judgment of Civil Court, the reliance on Advocate-Commissioner report to contend that the property now identified in Sy. No. 55, is illegal and unaccepted. He further contends that the finding of fact recorded by the executing Court is based on material and intended to ensure rule of law and achieve purpose of a decree of competent Court. He prays for passing appropriate orders under Sub-rule (5) of Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. for restoration of disturbed property as per decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. 15. The executing Court on examination of the oral and documentary evidence summed up the case as follows: The allegation against revision petitioner is that in execution of commission warrant in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 in O.S. No. 166 of 2012 with the assistance of police battalion, the existing boundary stones in the land of D.Hr. with the help of bulldozer were removed and in the same place new multi-coloured boundary stones were positioned. By referring to Ex. P-2, the executing Court accepted change of physical features and interference with the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. The executing Court disbelieved the explanation of J.Dr. that survey department people planted new poles. The executing Court further disbelieved the case of revision petitioner that revision petitioner has nothing to do with the removal of boundary stones/pillars. P-2, the executing Court accepted change of physical features and interference with the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. The executing Court disbelieved the explanation of J.Dr. that survey department people planted new poles. The executing Court further disbelieved the case of revision petitioner that revision petitioner has nothing to do with the removal of boundary stones/pillars. The revision petitioner admitted that there is no temporary injunction in O.S. No. 166 of 2012 protecting possession in Sy. No. 55. The evidence of Advocate Commissioner/R.W. 2 is considered and finally held by the executing Court as follows: Though he deposed that with the help of Assistant Director he executed the warrant, no such copy is annexed to his report. Therefore, the evidence adduced by both parties and from the Ex. P-2 photographs it appears that the J.Dr. under the guise of warrant, the Advocate-Commissioner measured the land in Sy. No. 55 to fix boundaries for 36 acres land, trespassed into the land of D.Hrs. and removed already planted boundary stones and planted new boundary stones in the land of D.Hrs. by violating injunction decree already granted in favour of D.Hr. in O.S. No. 116/11 vide Ex. P-1. 16. Now the points that arise for consideration are- i) Whether the breach of perpetual injunction of decree and judgment in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 is made out by respondents under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC?; ii) whether the order in E.P. No. 26 of 2013 is sustainable in law?; and iii) to what relief 17. The circumstances relevant for consideration of violation under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. are as follows: The decree of perpetual injunction is granted with reference to Sy. No. 59, as clearly defined by the boundaries stated on all sides. It is not in dispute that the pillar stones are delineating the plaint schedule land for which injunction is granted and the land claimed by the revision petitioner in Sy. No. 55. After the suit for injunction is decreed in O.S. No. 116 of 2011, the revision petitioner filed another suit for perpetual injunction for Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village. Admittedly, there is no order protecting the possession of revision petitioner vis-a-vis Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose referred to above. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village. Admittedly, there is no order protecting the possession of revision petitioner vis-a-vis Sy. No. 55 of Dhamslapuram Village. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose referred to above. The learned Senior Civil Judge has specifically directed the Advocate-Commissioner not to touch the area which has the protection of a decree of the Court. In the case on hand, the allegation is that the revision petitioner, Advocate-Commissioner, officials of survey department and the police have removed the pillar stones of suit schedule in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 and bulldozed the pillars and installed new pillar stones with different colours. The removing of pillar stones is evidenced by Ex. P-2 and R.Ws. 1 and 2 admit removal of pillars and planting of pillars with different colours, but are not in a position to show who has carried out these activities. Much discussion is not required to appreciate who would have carried out these acts of removing the original pillars and establishing/planting pillar stones with different colours. 18. The revision petitioner is claiming the encroached portion as forming part of Sy. No. 55. The same portion is protected by perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 by accepting the said land as forming part of Sy. No. 59 by the Junior Civil Judge. On the strength of Commissioners report, if the identity of property is changed and the rigour of perpetual injunction decree is diluted, the same defeats the adjudication and protection granted by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. Even admitting without concluding that there is interspersion of Sy. No. 55 into the boundaries covered by decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011, the revision petitioner, Advocate-Commissioner or police for that matter ought not to have entered into the portion of plaint schedule in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 and further worst, remove the existing pillars and plant pillars with different colours. This virtually amounts to defying the prohibitory order granted by the trial Court in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden is on the respondents and they failed to prove, is without merit in the consideration of this Court. This virtually amounts to defying the prohibitory order granted by the trial Court in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the burden is on the respondents and they failed to prove, is without merit in the consideration of this Court. The revision petitioner is admitting taking out Advocate Commission survey in the presence of police etc., thereafter change of pillars with different colours and there is no explanation for the documentary evidence brought on record by the respondents. Being the D.Hrs., the respondents have discharged the initial burden and it is for the revision petitioner to discharge the onus that he respected the Court decree and survey was conducted within Sy. No. 55 without removing the pillars. Further, the oral evidence of R.W. 1 that he does not know the change of pillars and that survey department people have planted the said boundary stones is sufficient to appreciate the conduct of revision petitioner. Further, what interest the survey department will have to change the features, is unintelligible. R.W. 2, being Court Commissioner, ought not to have been a party to these evidences in his presence. The evidence available on record is sufficient to hold the revision petitioner guilty of disobedience of perpetual injunction granted in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. 19. The further submission that the executing Court ought to have awaited the final outcome on the objections filed by the respondents in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012, is totally untenable, inasmuch as the revision petitioner ought not to have proceeded with execution of commission warrant with the help of police and officers of survey department when there is any ambiguity in the identification of property and it is firstly restrained by the Senior Civil Judge not to interfere with the area protected by a decree and secondly it is brought to his notice the perpetual injunction decree in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 for Sy. No. 59 with boundaries. The respondents are required to prove that the property now trespassed into and removing the pillars with bulldozer is within the plaint schedule. In the case on hand, the respondents have discharged the burden. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and are clearly distinguishable. The respondents are required to prove that the property now trespassed into and removing the pillars with bulldozer is within the plaint schedule. In the case on hand, the respondents have discharged the burden. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and are clearly distinguishable. In the opinion of this Court, at present there are no changed circumstances and Section 41(g) of the Specific Relief Act has no application. In the case on hand, the revision petitioner in spite of clear direction by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A. No. 1420 of 2012 has disobeyed the condition and interfered/trespassed into the land for which the trial Court granted perpetual injunction. I see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the executing Court which are intended to holding the rule of law and the prohibitory injunction granted. 20. This Court is compelled to observe that the ex post facto efforts to dilute perpetual injunction and alibi for disobedience are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. R.W. 2, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have taken further orders by the Court instead of evidencing these happenings. Once injunction is granted by accepting a particular boundary as within Sy. No. 59, the remedy to aggrieved is to change the boundaries and describe it as Sy. No. 55. I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision. 21. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Goli Koti Reddy v. Goli Raja Gopala Reddy and others held as follows: In the case on hand a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner and for implementation and execution of the decree an execution petition is pending before the executing Court. Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code lays down an elaborate system of implementation of the decrees. Order 21 not only gives rights to decree holders alone but rights are available to judgment debtors and third parties as well. Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code lays down an elaborate system of implementation of the decrees. Order 21 not only gives rights to decree holders alone but rights are available to judgment debtors and third parties as well. There are various defences which can be taken while resisting execution of a decree by the judgment debtors and if by way of a shortcut, without deciding the execution petition, police is asked to implement the decree, the judgment debtor would certainly lose the rights of resisting the decree on the basis of the defences available to such judgment debtor under Order 21. xxxx xxxx In an execution petition under Order 21 which is pending before the Executing Court, at no point of time the civil Courts can refer the matter of implementation of the decree, to the police. If this course is adopted it will be the negation of the rights of the judgment debtor available under Order 21. Unless and until the execution petition is finally heard there cannot be any question of sending it to the police for implementation. The order passed by the trial Court was bad. 22. The above reported case takes note of the scheme under Order XXI of C.P.C. which is again stated as a complete code in itself for executing the decrees passed by the Courts. The assistance of police, it is observed, ought not to be taken for execution of decrees, but the execution should be done by the officers of the Court. In the case on hand, it is unfortunate to note that the assistance of police and officers of survey department is taken in aid by the revision petitioner to disobey the perpetual injunction granted in O.S. No. 116 of 2011. 23. In the opinion of this Court, the executing Court ought not to have further left it to D.Hrs. for restitution under Section 144 of CPC. The facts present a tell-tale attitude of the revision petitioner or for that matter police, officials of survey department and R.W. 1. 23. In the opinion of this Court, the executing Court ought not to have further left it to D.Hrs. for restitution under Section 144 of CPC. The facts present a tell-tale attitude of the revision petitioner or for that matter police, officials of survey department and R.W. 1. It is in such cases to restore the injustice suffered by the party, sub-rule (5) of Order XXI Rule 32 reads as follows: Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression the act required to be done covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. Sub-rule (5) empowers the executing Court in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the steps covered by sub-rules (1) to (4) to direct performing an act so far as practicable (a) by the decree holder and (b) some other person appointed by the Court at the cost of judgment debtor. The explanation to sub-rule is introduced by C.P.C. Amendment Act 22 of 2002. Now the power can be exercised by executing Court in respect of prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. 24. Considering the mode and manner of executing of decrees for perpetual injunction, it is clear the Parliament has enabled the executing Court to undertake appropriate acts in addition to other consequences provided by sub-rules 1 to 4 of Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. 25. As is evident, the disobedience of perpetual injunction is both by reference and also removal of pillars, change of colours etc. it is the duty of Court to protect its decrees and the dignity of rule of law by passing comprehensive Order under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. 26. As is evident, the disobedience of perpetual injunction is both by reference and also removal of pillars, change of colours etc. it is the duty of Court to protect its decrees and the dignity of rule of law by passing comprehensive Order under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. 26. Therefore, by exercising the power under sub-rule (5) of Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C., while dismissing the revision, this Court directs the executing Court to entrust to R.W. 2/Mr. D. Narayana, the act of restitution of pillars to their original position and state of affairs as on 29.12.2012 of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 116 of 2011 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said exercise is directed to be taken up and completed at the cost and expense of J.Dr. If the J.Dr. fails to pay the expenses in this behalf, the executing Court recovers the same as provided by Rule 32 of Order XXI CPC. On receipt of orders from the executing Court, R.W. 2 will act as an Officer of the Court and file report. 27. With the above direction, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. Petition dismissed