LAURENTE MASCARENHAS Vs. JOSE C PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9.

(2.) THE above Writ Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the Order of the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte Order came to be granted in favour of the Respondents by Order dated 21.06.2003.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also perused the records. The learned Judge whilst passing the exparte Order on 02.02.2000 has, inter alia, restrained by an exparte temporary injunction the Petitioner from constructing a compound wall on the access shown in the plan at exhibit A and/or in any way putting up any obstructions on the said access. The learned Judge whilst passing the Order had also observed that in case any notice was issued to the Petitioner, the traditional access may be blocked. The Bailiff of the Court was also directed to carry out the measurements and file a report. The learned Judge whilst conducting the inquiry has also examined the Bailiff and, has come to the conclusion, that the five lines of stones were piled on the foundation only after the exparte Order was served on the Petitioner. Even assuming, such stones were existing prior to the service of the said exparte Order that by itself does not entitle the Petitioner to put up such stones after an exparte Order was served on the Petitioner not to obstruct in any manner the suit access. Hence, the findings of the learned Judge in the impugned Order that stacking such loose stones on the suit access after service of the exparte Order was in disobedience of such Order cannot be faulted.