Tanta and Another vs Kura and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Basanta predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction. In the said suit the defendants made a statement that no construction would be made on the land which is a Gali situated towards the western side of the house of the plaintiffs. Suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in view of the statement made by the defendants and their counsel, by restraining the latters permanently from raising any construction in the premises in dispute. Decree dated November 27,1987 was consequently drawn in the above terms.

Basanta who is now represented by the respondents filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC for detaining the judgment debtors in civil prison and for attachment of their property for disobeying the decree. It was alleged that they had put bricks in the street and had encroached street by putting cow dung cakes and thereby disobeyed the decree. It was also alleged that this in the only street for ingress and outgress to the house of the decree holder. In the end it was prayed that since the judgment debtors have not removed the encroachment they be punished.

The executing court after recording evidence and affording an opportunity to the judgment debtors came to the conclusion that judgment debtors have caused obstruction in the street towards the western side of the house of the decree holder and had not removed the obstruction despite the fact that they had an opportunity for obeying the decree and they have wilfully failed to obey it. In the circumstances, attachment of the property of the judgment debtors was ordered. It is against this order, the judgment debtors have filed the present revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners by reference to the statement of the defendants and their counsel, Annexure P-1 as also the decree sheet passed in that suit submitted that the judgment debtors only stated that no construction would be made on the land in the Gali and that it has not been found as a fact or otherwise that any construction has been raised by them and, therefore, the executing Court has erred in passing the order under revision. According to the learned counsel, stacking of bricks and putting of cow dung cakes and fixation of two hooks for tethering of catties did not amount to raising of construction and, therefore, the order under revision is not sustainable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the meaning of word ''construction'' as contained in Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language (ANGLO-HINDI); Sadhu Singh S. Mulla Singh Vs. District Board, Gurdaspur and Another, and M.L. Das and Sons Vs. Sampatmull Bothra, . On the other hand, counsel for the respondent relied upon the meaning of word ''construction'' as contained in the Websters ''Dictionary 2nd Edition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is a small street for going to the house of the decree holder. The petitioners intended to raise some construction and consequently a suit was filed by the plaintiff which was decreed. The petitioners by stacking bricks and obstructing the passage by throwing cow dung cakes and fixing hooks for tethering of cattle have achieved the same object which was sought to be achieved by raising construction. In other words, the petitioners arc trying to block the passage of the decree holder or his successors which, in my view, they cannot do. As far as the meaning of ''construction'' is concerned, relevant for the purpose of this case is an act or process of building, or of devising and forming; fabrication or erection. In Chambers'' English Dictionary, the word ''construction'' has been clearly defined to mean, the act of constructing; anything pile together; building; a stage structure and manner of forming etc. etc. Thus, minutely considering the meaning of the said word, the act of the judgment debtors of putting bricks, earth, cow-dung cakes and fixing of hooks etc. is nothing but an act of construction and clearly reflect their mind to achieve the object, namely, to obstruct the passage of the respondents. Thus, the stand of the petitioners to the effect that they have not obstructed any portion of the street on the western side of the house of the decree holder is not correct. Local Commissioner who was appointed by the court below found as a fact that the petitioners had piled up bricks etc. in the street and they had refused to remove the same. Even otherwise, a strict technical meaning of word ''construction'' is not required to be taken in the facts and circumstances of this case. The suit, as noticed already, was regarding obstruction in the street by raising construction. Any attempt made to obstruct the passage in street would amount to construction and the decree, therefore, has to be taken as a decree against obstruction of passage of the decree holder. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners do not help them as those were the judgments rendered in the context of Rent Restriction Acts.

For the reasons aforesaid, this revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. In the interest of justice, the petitioners are, however, given one month''s time to comply with the decree failing which the executing court shall proceed against them in accordance with law.