PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable extent. The revision before me has arisen from an order passed by the learned Munsif on an application of the opposite party u/O. 39 R. 2A of the CPC. An order of injunction passed by this court was said to have been defied by the applicants and the opposite party made the aforesaid application for attachment of the applicants' properties. The order of the learned Munsif runs thus:

(2.) The conditional order passed by the court saying that the applicant shall undergo imprisonment in civil prison provided the expenses of detention was paid by the opposite party cannot be said to be a correct order. Either the court should have passed a clear order committing the applicant to civil prison irrespective of the fact whether the subsistence allowance was paid by the opposite party or not or it should not have passed such an order. If the opposite party did not want to take upon himself the burden of keeping the applicants in detention he could easily have refused to pay the required subsistence money and the order of the court would have been nullified. He appears to have been keen to see the applicants in detention and he saw to it that they were kept under arrest. He can not ask the applicants to pay for their own discomfiture in being kept under custody. The subsistence allowance paid by the opposite party can not be treated as costs in execution. I have no hesitation in holding that the opposite party is not entitled to recover the amount spent by him in keeping the applicants in civil prison. The application in revision is allowed with costs and the order of the court below is set aside.