Lila Krishan vs Himta Ram

M. Jeyapaul, J.—This revision is directed by the orders passed by the trial Court under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC and confirmed by the first appellate Court. Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner-defendant. An interim injunction was sought in the said suit under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The injunction application was allowed by the trial Court on 16.1.2003. It is alleged by the respondent-plaintiff that the revision petitioner-defendant raised construction over the disputed plot on 13.2.2003 violating the order of injunction granted by the trial Court on 16.1.2003. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted a report on 15.2.2003 to the effect that construction had been raised over the plot in dispute. Praying to punish the revision petitioner-defendant, an application was moved before the trial Court by the respondent-plaintiff invoking the provisions under Order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The revision petitioner-defendant contended that he had not raised any construction in the disputed plot. He would state that he had raised construction only in his plot. He had not violated the orders passed by the trial Court as no injunction order was passed qua his plot over which construction was raised by him, it is further contended.

Trial Court having relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff in the background of the report, Exhibit P-7, and site-plan, Exhibit P-8, submitted by the Local Commissioner in the civil suit No. 1073, chose to hold that the defendant had intentionally violated the order of injunction granted by it on 16.1.2003 restraining him from putting up any construction. As a result of the decision arrived at in the said application, the defendant was ordered to be detained in civil prison for one month subject to the condition that the plaintiff deposited the amount towards the subsistence allowance for the defendant, within one month. The first appellate Court, in appeal, confirmed the decision rendered by the trial Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-defendant would submit that no finding was recorded by the Courts below that the defendant disobeyed the interim order passed by the trial Court. It is his plea that on the very same day, an ex-parte decree was passed as against the defendant. Therefore, it is his submission that the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that the orders passed by the Courts below would disclose that a specific finding has been recorded that the defendant intentionally disobeyed the orders of the Court. He would also submit that there is nothing wrong in passing an ex-parte decree in the main suit, on the very same day, the application under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC was disposed of by the trial Court.

After hearing the revision petition for some time, this court made an attempt to bring about an amicable solution to the dispute between the parties; however, the attempt so made did not fructify. I find that there is no merit in the submission made by the revision petitioner-defendant. It is found that the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was disposed of on 16.1.2003 restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and from raising any construction over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The contention of the plaintiff that the respondent has raised construction over the disputed plot on 13.2.2003 was well substantiated not only by the evidence of the plaintiff but also by the report Exhibit P-7 and the site plan Exhibit P-8 submitted by the Local Commissioner who was appointed in civil suit No. 1073. Both the Courts below have rightly held in the face of the overwhelming evidence on record that the defendant has intentionally disobeyed the specific orders of the trial Court passed in the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the effect that the defendant shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and also shall not raise any construction in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the present revision and therefore, the same stands dismissed.