ORDER : This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F. in Execution Petition No.27/2005, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/decree holder under Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC is dismissed. 2. It transpires that the petitioners filed Execution Petition against the respondents herein in Ex.No.27/2005 for disobedience of order of permanent injunction passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F, in O.S.195/1998 and prayed to keep the judgment debtor in civil prison and attachment of their properties. The Lower court after appreciating the material evidence on record dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the decree passed in O.S.195/1998 was in respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/2 and 13/3 situated at Kannur village, Kyasamballi Hobli, Bangarpet. The permanent injunction passed by the Court in O.S.195/1998 was with respect to the said lands besides the tamarind trees situated therein. The respondent in utter disobedience to the decree of injunction granted by the Court below in O.S.195/1998 interfered with the possession of the petitioner/decree holder and damaged the trees causing loss to an extent of two lakhs to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file Execution Petition for disobedience of the order of the Court below passed in O.S.195/1998. The respondent in his cross-examination had admitted that the standing trees were found in the RTC in Sy.Nos.13/2 and 13/3 but the same was not properly appreciated by the Court below in dismissing the Execution Petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned Judgment and order would contend that the suit was decreed in the year 2001 in O.S.195/1998. The Execution Petition was filed after lapse of five years. No disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by the respondent was proved before the Execution court. In such circumstances, dismissing of the petition by the Court below is justifiable and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents have disobeyed the order of permanent injunction passed by the Court below in O.S.195/1998. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents have disobeyed the order of permanent injunction passed by the Court below in O.S.195/1998. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on Ex.P8 i.e. the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondents before the jurisdictional police authorities for disobedience of the order of injunction passed by the court. To prove the same, no substantial satisfactory evidence was let in by the petitioner except making the allegation. No independent witness was examined though it was contended that the eye witnesses were present at the time of lodging police complaint before the police authorities for causing damage to tamarind trees by the respondents. It is only a frivolous petition filed by the petitioner not supported by any evidence. Dismissal of the said petition is sustainable. No infirmity or irregularity is found in the order. Petition stands dismissed.