PRATIBHA NEGI Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Almora in Misc. Civil Appeal No.19 of 2012 Chandra Prakash vs. Km. Pratibha Negi, whereby the first appellate court while allowing the misc. civil appeal, has set aside the order dated 01.12.2012 passed by the trial court and has awarded two months' civil imprisonment to the revisionist.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that respondent/plaintiff instituted original suit no.4 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ranikhet, District Almora for permanent injunction against the revisionist/defendant. Trial Court, vide order dated 20.02.2007, granted ex-parte injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, thereby restraining the revisionist/defendant from interfering in the gallery of shop no.827 as mentioned in the plaint. Revisionist/defendant filed her reply in the suit. On 21.04.2007, respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. for summoning and punishing the revisionist/defendant for willful disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2007. In the application, the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that inspite of service of the copy of the interim order dated 20.02.2007, the revisionist/defendant is creating interference over the property by placing temporary wooden stairs. On the application, revisionist/defendant filed her reply stating that the respondent/plaintiff has obtained injunction by concealing the material facts. In support of his application, respondent/plaintiff filed some documentary evidence and in oral evidence, he filed affidavits of P.W.1 Chandra Prakash, P.W.2 Chandan Singh Bisht, P.W.3 Yateesh Tiwari, P.W.4 Yogesh Joshi and P.W.5 Gopal Dutt. Revisionist/defendant also filed some documentary evidence in support of his case.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, Civil Judge (J.D), Ranikhet, rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. on the ground that in spite of sufficient time granted, the respondent/plaintiff did not produce the witnesses for cross-examination and hence affidavits on oath are not admissible in evidence. On the selfsame day, Original Suit No.4 of 2007 was also dismissed on merits. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Judge, Almora being numbered as Misc. case no.3 of 2007. The appellate court, vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2014, allowed the misc. appeal and held that the revisionist/plaintiff is guilty of willful disobedience of order of injunction dated 20.02.2007 and accordingly imposed a punishment of two months' civil imprisonment.