Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 8 (HP)

Roop Dei alias Swaroop Devi v. Sukhwanti Devi

2015-01-02

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners-defendants against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan on 23.10.2010 has been dismissed except with the modification that instead of thirty days imprisonment, the same has been reduced to twenty days. 2. The plaintiff is the respondent, who alongwith the suit had filed an application for ad- interim injunction, on the basis of which an exparte stay order was passed on 20.3.2000, which was made absolute on 10.7.2000 in the presence of the counsel for the defendants-appellants. The defendants No. 1 to 4 through defendants No. 5 and 7 being their general power of attorney alienated the suit property to defendant No. 6 knowing fully well that there was status quo order in operation till the disposal of the main suit. Complaining of such violation, the plaintiff filed an application, under order 39 Rule 2A CPC. 3. In response to this application objections on behalf of defendants-appellants regarding maintainability and mis-joinder of parties were taken. On merits, the passing of ex-parte injunction order and affirmation thereof was not seriously disputed. But despite these averments, the defendants still claimed that the order passed by the courts had not been violated. The learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondents have disobeyed the order as alleged, if so to what relief the petitioner are entitled? OPP. 2. Whether this petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Final order. 4. In the teeth of the sale deeds executed from time to time after passing of the stay order, the learned trial court allowed the application against defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 and ordered them to be detained in civil imprisonment for a term of one month. Since defendant No. 2 had died, therefore, obviously no order was passed against the said defendant. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the learned District Judge (II), Solan with slight modification wherein the term of civil imprisonment was reduced from one month to twenty days. 5. Since defendant No. 2 had died, therefore, obviously no order was passed against the said defendant. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the learned District Judge (II), Solan with slight modification wherein the term of civil imprisonment was reduced from one month to twenty days. 5. It is against these orders that present petition has been preferred on the ground that defendants are simple rustic villagers and they are illiterate, one of them is more than 83 years of age but despite this the defendants still maintained that there was no cogent and legal admissible evidence on record which would suggest that the status quo order had been violated by them. It is then claimed that the sale-deeds had not been executed by them in person, but the same were executed through their power of attorney. The learned courts below had relied upon wholly inadmissible evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. It is shocking that despite the defendants having been found guilty of breach and violation of orders of status quo would still chose to find fault with the orders of the learned courts below. Once the defendants did not deny that an ex-parte order of status quo had been passed on 20.3.2000, which was made absolute on 10.7.2000 in their presence, then the subsequent transfer of the property by various sale deeds would definitely amount to breach of order of status quo. Admittedly all the six sale deeds Ex. AW 1/A to Ex. AW 1/E effected by defendants No. 1 to 4 have been executed after the passing of order of status quo on 21.8.2000, 4.12.2000 (two sale deeds), 12.12.2000, 16.12.2000 and 4.1.2001 respectively. Once copies of sale deeds had been legally brought on record and considered, it cannot be argued that the learned courts below had placed reliance on evidence, which was legally inadmissible. 7. It is also not open to the petitioners to contend that the act was not committed by the parties but by their power of attorney because acts of the attorney cannot be considered to be independent but are essentially required to be construed on behalf of the parties. 7. It is also not open to the petitioners to contend that the act was not committed by the parties but by their power of attorney because acts of the attorney cannot be considered to be independent but are essentially required to be construed on behalf of the parties. That apart, the defendants in order to show their bonafide have not placed on record or even made a whisper that they at any stage had cancelled the power of attorney. 8. Further, in case defendants would have genuinely been remorseful, they would have not indulged themselves in contesting the petition and would have candidly admitted their lapses and revoked the sale deeds, but then the defendants here are out to blame the entire procedure and the courts for their own lapses. That apart, the defendants have not even challenged the authority of their power of attorney in effecting and executing the sales. After all a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in immovable property, but is a creation of an agency whereby the guarantor authorizes guarantee to do the acts specified therein on behalf of the guarantor, which when executed will be binding on the guarantor as if done by him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would then argue that taking into consideration the age of one of the defendants, who is stated to be more than 83 years of age and further taking into consideration the facts that petitioners are all ladies, the sentence as imposed by the learned courts below is harsh and excessive. 10. No one can be permitted to undermine the authority of the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. The glory of the court has to be kept blaze and every attempt has to be made to deter the people from attempting to render justice contemptible in the eyes of public. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate the judicial process free from fouling the fountain of justice to ward off the people from undermining the confidence of the public in the purity of fountain of justice and due administration, so that justice thereby remains pure, untainted and unimpeded. If the people(s) allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of justice calling for urgent action. If the people(s) allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of justice calling for urgent action. Any action on the part of a litigant which has the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold the majesty of law. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by permitting the litigants to fault the orders of the court. 11. It is repeatedly held by the Hon’ble apex court that scope of revisional jurisdiction, under section 115 CPC, is restricted to only such of those orders where there is a jurisdictional error or illegality or material irregularity. The words “illegality and material irregularity” do not cover either errors of fact or law. These words do not refer to the decision arrived at, but the manner in which the decision is arrived at. It cannot be said that courts below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law or are failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 12. Before parting, I am constrained to observe that least what was expected from the petitioners was an unconditional, honest and a sincere apology, would they have been really and sincerely regretting, repenting and remorseful from the bottom of their hearts for their act of disobedience. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.