GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs. NOORMOHMAD HUSIENBHAI TANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants revisionists praying that they may be restrained from attempting to discharge the plaintiff respondent from service as gardner. An application for ad interim injunction was moved upon which order to maintain status-quo was passed by the trial court. Application for ad interim injunction was, however, finally rejected on 7.2.1989. Order to maintain status-Quo was passed on 30.7.1988. The said order was passed before 6.00 p.m. on 30.7.1988 which was served on the same day in the evening. 31.7.1988 was Sunday. On 1.8.1988 the plaintiff respondent was permitted to sign the muster roll and worked in obedience of the order to maintain status-quo passed by the trial court. However, from 2.8.1988 he was not permitted to work and in this way disobedience of the orders of the trial court was committed by the revisionists. It was also alleged in the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A CPC that not only the intentional disobedience of the trial court's order was committed by the revisionist, but also erasers and alterations were made in the muster roll and the letter "P" on 1.8.1988 on the muster roll was erased and changed by letter "A" Accordingly in the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A CPC. prayer was made for taking suitable action against the revisoinists.

(2.) The revisionists denied the alleged disobedience and pleaded that University is law abiding statutory body and its officers can not dare to commit contempt of the court. It was a case of the revisionists that before service of the trial court's order to maintain status-quo on 30.7.1988 the plaintiff was relieved from the service before 6.40 p.m. The said order was served on the revisionist at 6.40 P.M. In this view of the matter it was further pleaded that no contempt of court was committed by the revisionists.

(3.) The trial court found that the order of injunction in the nature of direction to maintain status-quo became effective on 30.7.1988 and after 6.00 P.M. when it was passed and if termination order was passed thereafter it amounted to disobedience of the court's order, it further found that the revisionists with a view to give support to their stand made deliberate alterations and erasers in the muster roll by altering the word "P" in the muster roll on 1.8.1988 to letter "A". In face of this finding the trial court took a lenient view and instead of imposing any penalty on the revisionists directed them to reinstate the plaintiff respondent as gardner at once.