C.R. No.2313 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2313 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
Rattan Singh
.....PETITIONER
Versus
Tarsem Kumar
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor
against the order dated 15.2.2005 passed by the Executing Court. By the
impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5000/- as damages to the decree holder for demolishing his wall in
violation of the interim order of injunction.
In the present case, a suit for permanent injunction was filed
against the petitioner restraining him from interfering in the suit property. In
the said suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed. The
petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. During the pendency of the suit,
vide an interim order dated 17.5.1982, the petitioner was restrained from
interfering into possession of the plaintiff. In violation of the said order, the
boundary wall of the plaintiff was demolished. The plaintiff filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for taking action against the
petitioner. The said application remained pending and the suit was decreed
in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the decree holder pressed the
application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The petitioner opposed the
C.R. No.2313 of 2005 -2-
prayer on the ground that after decreeing the suit, the Civil Court cannot
proceed with the said application. The objection was dismissed and vide
order dated 13.10.1990, the petitioner was held guilty of willfully
disobeying the order of interim injunction dated 17.5.1982 and was, thus,
held liable to be punished. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be
detained in civil imprisonment for a period of one month and his property
was ordered to be attached by issuing warrants of attachment in the sum of
Rs.5,000/-.
The petitioner challenged the said order by filing C.R. No.514
of 1996 which was dismissed by this Court while holding that to maintain
the dignity of the Court, it is essential that the orders passed by the Civil
Courts be obeyed and in case of violation, the guilty should duly punished
according to law.
After the above-said decision, the decree holder filed an
application to enforce the order of attachment. The said application was
disposed of by the impugned order whereby the Executing Court has
directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the decree holder.
While admitting the petition, the operation of the impugned
order was stayed.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared
on behalf of the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the order
dated 15.2.2005 passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner had already
undergone civil imprisonment of one month. He has further submitted that
the small portion of the boundary wall which was allegedly demolished in
violation of the temporary injunction order dated 17.5.1982, has already
C.R. No.2313 of 2005 -3-
been constructed by the decree holder without any resistance or objection
from the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not
interfering in the possession of the decree holder in terms of the decree of
permanent injunction passed against him. In view of these facts and
circumstances, learned counsel submits that once the petitioner has already
suffered civil imprisonment for one month, then the attachment of his
property is not justified, particularly when the demolished wall has already
been re-erected by the decree holder without any resistance or objection
from the petitioner.
After considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that
since the petitioner has already undergone civil imprisonment of one month
for the alleged violation, the ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid
proceedings against him are ordered to be dropped. In this case, the parties
are litigating for breach of the interim injunction order issued on 17.5.1982.
The main suit has already been decided. In the instant petition, neither the
respondent nor anybody has put in appearance. It shows that he is not
serious about contesting this petition. Moreover, in terms of the order dated
13.10.1990 passed by the Civil Court, the petitioner has already suffered
civil imprisonment for one month. The counsel for the petitioner has also
stated that the petitioner will not interfere in the possession of the decree
holder in terms of the decree of permanent injunction passed against him.
Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
15.2.2005 passed by the Executing Court is set aside, and the execution
proceedings pursuant to impugned order are dropped against the petitioner.
September 16, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE