SAMEE KHAN Vs. BINDU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two neighbours are engaged in a long drawn fight in civil Court on a small issue. The fight started at the lowest level (Munsiff's Court) and they have now reached this Apex Court with a side issue which emanated therefrom. Defendant in the suit has defied an order of ad interim injunction and plaintiff in the suit moved for punitive action against him. The trial Court ordered him to be put in prison for one month. That order was confirmed by the appellate Court, but the High Court in revision quashed it. Plaintiff is still chasing his adversary on that issue and he has reached this Court with the Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order.

(2.) The subject-matter of the suit is a small space of land used as a means of access (gali) which abuts the house of both the parties. Plaintiff who filed the suit prayed for an ad interim injunction order restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to the use of the said space as a gali. The trial Court which granted the temporary injunction order on 16-10-1984 required the defendant to maintain status quo in regard to the suit property and subsequently the ad interim order was made absolute. But within a month thereof plaintiff complained to the Court that defendant had put up a brick wall in the disputed space in utter defiance of the injunction order and moved for initiating action under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The trial Court found that defendant had put up the obstruction wall in disobdience of the order of injunction and directed him to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge (Senior Division).

(3.) Before the High Court, defendant adopted a twin approach though he did not dispute the factual position that the impugned obstruction was made by him. Firstly, he raised a contention that the Court cannot order his detention without ordering attachment of his property. Alternatively, he pleaded for mercy of the Court on the facts that the obstruction has subsequently been removed and he has tendered unconditional apology to the Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan who heard the matter, accepted both pleas and exonerated him from punishment.