Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 691 (MP)

Benilal v. Raghunandan

2006-05-11

AJIT SINGH

body2006
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.8.1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 96/1993 by the First Additional Judge, Mudwara whereby he has confirmed the order dated 21.6.1993 passed in MCC No. 3/1986 by the First Civil Judge Class-II, Mudwara. 2. The respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit No. 136-A/85 for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioners wherein he pleaded that although the petitioners had constructed about four feet wall, they be restrained from further raising the said wall. The respondent No. 1 also applied for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the petitioners from making further construction in the suit premises. 3. The respondent No. 1 later filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein he alleged that the petitioners are continuing with the construction work in utter violation of the order of temporary injunction passed against them. The trial Court by order dated 27.2.1989 held that the petitioners have disobeyed the order of temporary injunction by continuing with the construction work in the suit premises and directed for sending the petitioners to civil prison for a period of one month. Against the order dated 27.2.1989 the petitioners preferred a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Katni, who by order dated 23.1.1992 dismissed the same. Petitioners, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition No. 651/1992 before this Court but the same was also dismissed by order dated 21.2.1992. 4. On 3.5.1993 petitioners filed an application MJC No. 3/86 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Court stating that the entire construction which was raised, after passing of the order of temporary injunction, has been demolished by them and since they have complied with the order of temporary injunction, the order of civil imprisonment be recalled. The trial Court rejected the said application by order dated 21.6.1993. Petitioners then filed a Civil Revision No. 96/1993 before the First Additional Judge, Mudwara, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. This Court by an interim order dated 23.8.1995 stayed the order of the Courts below for sending the petitioners to civil imprisonment. 6. The trial Court rejected the said application by order dated 21.6.1993. Petitioners then filed a Civil Revision No. 96/1993 before the First Additional Judge, Mudwara, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. This Court by an interim order dated 23.8.1995 stayed the order of the Courts below for sending the petitioners to civil imprisonment. 6. On perusal of the record I find that the respondent No. 1 has nowhere disputed that the petitioners have ultimately demolished the construction, which they had made after passing of the order of temporary injunction. In the case of Sitaram v. Ganesh Das [AIR 1973 Allahabad 449] it has been held that the purpose of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enforce the order of temporary injunction. It is a provision which permits the Court to execute the injunction order. Its provisions arc similar to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provide for the execution of a decree for injunction. The mode of execution given in Order 21 Rule 32 is the same as provided in Rules 2-A of Order 39. In either case, for the execution of the order or decree of injunction, attachment of property is to be made and the person who is to be compelled to obey the injunction can be detained in civil prison. The purpose is not to punish the man but to see that the decree or order is obeyed and the wrong done by disobedience of the order is remedied and the status quo ante is brought into effect. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid view of the Allahabad High Court. 7. Since the petitioners have removed the construction in compliance of the order of temporary injunction and status quo ante has been brought, I do not find any justification in upholding the sentence of civil imprisonment, as passed by the Courts below against them. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the orders of the Courts below are set aside. None for parties.