SHYAM LAL Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this writ petition stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in a second appeal between the parties delivered earlier in the day.

(2.) THE petition arises out of an order passed against the Defendants, who, are the Petitioners before me under Order XIL Rule 2 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate court was of the view that the Appellants had committed breach of an order of injunction issued against them by the trial court by way of an ad interim injunction. The trial court had rejected the application of the plaintiff -Respondents. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower appellate court held that the Defendants had disobeyed the ad interim injunction issued by the trial court and were, therefore, liable to restore the property in favour of the plaintiff -Respondents.

(3.) THE position, therefore, that emerges out of the facts stated above is that the suit of the plaintiff -Respondents stands dismissed. The question is whether this Court should direct the enforcement of the order issued by the trial court during the pendency of the suit by way of an ad interim injunction even after dismissal of the suit. In Sheo Kumar Saxena v. Zila Sahkari vikas Sangh Gonda, AIR 1988 All. 180, a learned Single Judge of this Court field that after the vacation of temporary injunction the violation of which is alleged in the proceedings initiated under Order XIL Rule 2 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure punitive action for breach of that order cannot be taken. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that Order XIL Rule 2 -A is primarily concerned with the preservation of the property and once the injunction order is vacated the court cannot enforce the order.