NARAYANI Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction. Suit was decreed ex parte. On the allegation that defendants violated the decree, petitioners took out execution proceedings for taking punitive action against defendants. Learned Munsiff, in execution, found that defendants are guilty of violation of injunction and ordered that one of the defendants (2nd defendant) be detained in civil prison for 30 days. It was further ordered that properties of defendants be attached for recovery of value of the loss sustained by plaintiffs on account of violation of injunction (together with cost of proceedings) as compensation. The said order was challenged by respondents in appeal before District Court. Appeal was allowed and the order of Munsiff was set aside. Hence, this C.R.P. by the plaintiffs/ decree holders.

(2.) The decree for injunction restrains defendants from taking yield or cutting trees from the decree scheduled property or changing its shape or erecting any structure thereon or committing acts of waste etc. On 26-7-1975, execution petition was filed by the decree holders (petitioners in this revision) complaining that defendants wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction by plucking coconuts and erecting new structures. Plaintiffs prayed for punitive action to be taken against defendants.

(3.) In the objections filed by defendants they submitted, inter alia, that it was due to some bona fide mistake regarding identity of property that coconuts happened to be plucked therefrom etc. A commissioner appointed by execution court visited the decree schedule property on 7-9-1975 and reported to the court that seasonal crops have been raised in the property.