Skip to content


Surja Ram and 4 ors. Vs. Mali Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 357 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)99
AppellantSurja Ram and 4 ors.
RespondentMali Ram
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 39 rule 2--ad interim injunction--order restraining defendants from making construction on street leading to plaintiff's house--held, it is not absolute prohibition restraining from construction in street--no order to maintain status quo--order of lower court directing detention of petitioner in civil prison is quashed.;the order of ad-interim injunction reproduced in an earlier part of this order, it will be seen that it does not contain any absolute prohibition restraining the defendants from making any construction in the street in dispute. all that the defendants had been enjoined to do was not to make any obstruction in the streets leading to the house of the plaintiff and the rasta infront of his house. the trial court expressed itself in so many words..........2 cpc made by the plaintiff, the trial court made an order, dated november 26, 1969 granting an ad-interim injunction in these words:after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, an ad-interim injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants from making any obstruction in the streets leading to the house of the plaintiff and in the rasta infront of his house. the defendants are directed to appear in the court on december 17, 1969 and show cause as to why this ad interim injunction be not confirmed.on december 17, 1969, the plaintiff made an application under order 39 rule 2(3) of the code of civil procedure, 1908 before its amendment by the amendment act no. 104 of 1976, complaining that the defendants had raised construction at the western end of the street and thereby closed it on.....
Judgment:

K.S. Sidhu, J.

1. This petition of revision under Section 115 CPC has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. Maliram, the respondent herein,, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Surjaram and others, the petitioners herein, restraining them from causing any obstruction in the streets leading to his house and in the Rasta in front of his house. On an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC made by the plaintiff, the trial court made an order, dated November 26, 1969 granting an ad-interim injunction in these words:

After hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, an ad-interim injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants from making any obstruction in the streets leading to the house of the plaintiff and in the Rasta infront of his house. The defendants are directed to appear in the Court on December 17, 1969 and show cause as to why this ad interim injunction be not confirmed.

On December 17, 1969, the plaintiff made an application under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before its amendment by the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976, complaining that the defendants had raised construction at the Western end of the street and thereby closed it on December 14, 1969. The plaintiff prayed that the defendants should be punished for disobedience of the ad-interim injunction issued by the Court

3. The defendants entered appearance and contested the said application. They denied that they had erected any construction in any of the streets on December 14,1969. They added in this context that whatever construction they had made at the spot had been completed by them by November 16, 1969.

4. After recording evidence of both sides, the trial Court made an order, dated August 6, 1975 holding that the defendants Surja Ram, Ram Kumar, Harphool, Malaram and Sagar Singh are guilty of disobedience of the order of this Court dated November 26, 1969, in that as the trial Court put it, 'it is established that the defendants had disobeyed the Court's order directing the status quo to be observed'. Consequently, the trial Court directed that all the aforementioned five persons be detained in civil prison for the period of 15 days.

5. The defendants appealed from that order. The Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, who heard the appeal, affirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Civil Judge, Surja Ram, Mali Ram, Harphool, Sagar Singh and Ram Kumar have filed this petition of revision.

7. It will be seen from the order of the trial Court that it proceeded to judgment without stating any point or points for determination. Learned Civil Judge, however stated four points for determination by him. One of the points stated by him reads as under:

Whether the defendants have constructed a wall at the Northern land of the street in the West of the plaintiff's house on December 14, 1969 and thereby committed disobedience of ad interim injunction.

8. By its judgment, dated September 6, 1980, learned Civil Judge held that the construction of the wall in dispute must necessarily be held to be constituting disobedience of the order of ad interim injunction issued by the trial Court and that, therefore, the argument raised on behalf of the defendants that the said wall did not cause any obstruction in the streets in question, must be rejected as wholly devoid of force. In fact, the learned Civil Judge went a step further in interpretation of the order of ad-interim injunction in that he stated that the defendants had thereby been restrained from making any construction whatever.

9. Now, if we read the order of ad-interim injunction reproduced in an earlier part of this order, it will be seen that it does not contain any absolute prohibition restraining the defendants from making any construction in the street in dispute. All that the defendants had been enjoined to do was not to make any obstruction in the streets leading to the house of the plaintiff and the Rasta infront of his house. In order to hold the defendants guilty of any disobedience of that order, it had to be found as a fact that the construction, if any. raised by them in the street in dispute constituted an obstruction in the said streets. It seems to me that the Courts below proceeded on the assumption that the defendants had been required by the order of ad-interim injunction to observe status quo. The trial Court evpressed itself in so many words stating that the defendants had committed a disobedience of its order by distrubing the status quo. It will be re-called that no such order requiring the defendants to observe status quo had been passed by the trial Court.

10. For all these reasons, this petition of revision must be allowed. The order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court directing the petitioners to be detained in the civil prison is hereby quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //