LAXMAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. USHA VARDHRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present Appeal from Order, the appellants seek to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.12.2009 and execution order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Misc. Suit no.25/1998, titled as Smt. Usha Vardhrajan vs. Laxman Singh Rawat and others, under Order 39 Rule 2 -A C.P.C. and further to dismiss the application under Order 39 Rule 2 -A C.P.C. filed by the respondent.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order. The facts, which emerged out from the impugned judgment, are that an interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) on 10.09.1998. The allegation, which was proved against the appellants, is that they disobeyed the injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and, therefore, they were directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of 15 days each. In other words, they were held guilty for violation of injunction order dated 10.09.1998 and were directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of 15 days under Order 39 Rule 2 -A C.P.C. The appellant no.1 was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, appellant no.2 was working as Conservator of Forest and appellant nos.3 and 4 were posted as Forester and Forest Guard respectively. Injunction order was disobeyed by the appellants.

(3.) IN order to prove such disobedience, the plaintiff (respondent herein) produced a copy of the injunction order. Mohd. Alam (PW1) and Salim (PW2) were produced before the court below to show that the appellants had disobeyed the injunction order. Although, affidavits were also filed on behalf of the appellants Laxman Singh Rawat and Mahaveer Prasad Naithani, the court below did not rely upon their affidavits and held all the appellants guilty of obedience of injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff (respondent) on 10.09.1998. The Court was taken through the entire judgment, as also the documents brought on record. The only irresistible conclusion, which a court can arrive at, on the basis of documents brought on record, is that the appellants were rightly held guilty of obedience of injunction order.