MOOLJIT SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE IX BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the judgment debtors. THE decree holders brought an action before the trial court, in effect, complaining that the decree of the Court in their favour was violated by the defendants. THE trial court passed a consequential order that the decree be observed or else the judgment debtors will be detained in custody till the decree of the Court is honoured.

(2.) AGGRIEVED the judgment debtors preferred a civil appeal before the IXth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, which* was registered as Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1986: Rajpal Singh v. Raghubir Singh. The lower appellate court scrutinised the entire material on record threadbare, perused the evidence of the parties on record and the pleadings, of both the decree holders and the judgment debtors. Consequently, in a detailed order it affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the decree had indeed been violated and the consequence for violation of the decree must follow. The order of the trial court was affirmed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court Bhagwat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 and referred to paragraph 10 particularly. This case is not applicable as the Supreme Court has set on record that a finding may be interfered with, where it is utterly perverse. This Court after examining the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court is of the opinion that there is no perversity in the two judgments impugned so as to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.