LAWS(GJH)-2004-9-25

RAMESHCHANDRA MOHANLAL Vs. CHANDABEN WD O MOHANLAL BHOLANATH

Decided On September 03, 2004
RAMESHCHANDRA MOHANLAL Appellant
V/S
CHANDABEN WD/O MOHANLAL BHOLANATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-original plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved of an order dated 08.04.2003 in Misc. Application (restoration) No.868 of 2000. Though prima facie, the order is in favour of the plaintiff as it grants the relief but then in part. This is a case wherein a stricter view is warranted, more particularly in light of the fact that despite order dated 08.04.2003 whereby the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to sentence opponents no.5/2, Vishnukumar Prabhudas Gupta; 5/3, Rohitkumar Prabhudas Gupta; 5/4, Rajkumar Prabhudas Gupta; 5/5, Dharmendra Prabhudas Gupta; and 5/6, Manoj Prabhudas Gupta with civil imprisonment for three months for their wilful disobedience and breach of injunction order.

(2.) It is stated at the Bar that against this order opponents had approached this Court by filing Appeal From Order No.162 of 2003 which was dismissed on 10.07.2003. The opponents have undergone the sentence of civil imprisonment, that is the precise reason for which a stricter view is required to be taken in this matter. The learned Judge in his elaborate and well considered judgement has recorded in no uncertain terms that the opponents have taken a very adamant stand. It is recorded in para 9 of the order as under:

(3.) Mr.Gupta, the learned advocate appearing for the opponents raised all possible, technical objections to the maintainability of this Appeal From Order besides the challenge to the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Judge. In view of the fact that the Appeal From Order which was filed by these very opponents is dismissed by this Court on 10.07.2003, what was expected of from a law abiding citizen was to submit to the Court, more so when two courts have concurrently held that violating the order of the Court, construction is put up. They should have asked for time to remove the same. The opponents preferred to undergo the civil imprisonment--- a lighter option in their view.