Manohar Lal vs Madan Lal Goyal and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two months in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") for violating the order dated 01.09.2011 and order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.09.2008 has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent No. 1 filed civil suit captioned ''Madan Lal Goyal v. M/s. Bahadur Chand Dina Nath and others'' for recovery of Rs. 4,42,427/-. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for restraining the petitioner herein and others from alienating the land in dispute as detailed therein was also filed. Vide order dated 01.09.2011, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridkot passed the interim injunction order which was extended from time to time. However, the petitioner during pendency of suit and subsistence of interim injunction order intentionally sold the suit property and thereby violated the order of the Court. For violation of order of the Court, respondent No. 1 moved application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code. On pleading of parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the respondents have disobeyed the order passed by the Court? OPA

Relief.

The parties were afforded opportunities to lead their respective evidence and ultimately after evaluating the evidence, vide order dated 29.09.2008, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.09.2008 has also been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 02.12.2010. Hence, this revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an old man and he alienated the suit property under the wrong impression. The learned counsel has further contended that now the recovery has been effected and no harm has been caused to respondent No. 1. The learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner has already undergone 15 days civil imprisonment and his civil imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that the petitioner violated the interim injunction order without any justification. Since the petitioner was well aware of the interim injunction order, the order passed by the Court could not have been taken lightly.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, the recovery has been effected and decree has been satisfied. The concurrent finding has been recorded by the Courts below. The petitioner is an old man of 70 years and has already undergone 15 days civil imprisonment.

In view of above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by further keeping the petitioner in civil imprisonment at this point of time as the petitioner is a 70 years old man and decree passed against him has been satisfied. It is a fit case wherein civil imprisonment awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to undergone and in lieu thereof, the petitioner can be burdened to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The amount of Rs. 70,000/- is to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Faridkot within two weeks from today. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the period of civil imprisonment shall stand reduced to already undergone. It is, however, made clear that if the amount is not deposited, the petitioner will serve the remaining part of civil imprisonment. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.