BANSIDHAR RAMRATN UPADHYAY Vs. RAMCHANDRA RAMNARAYAN TOTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendants challenge (he order dated 15-4-1996 passed by Additional District Judge, akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 173/1994 and the earlier order passed by Civil Judge, Junior division, Murtizapur dated 11-10-1994 below exhibit-65 in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1991. They have prayed for dismissal of the application Exhibit-65 moved by the present non-applicant/plaintiff in that suit. The said application at Exh. 65 was moved by the present non-applicant for breach of orders of temporary injunction committed by the present applicants/ defendants. Necessary facts in this respect are as under:

(2.) ADVOCATE M. P. Lala appearing for the revision applications contends that the order shows total non-application of mind. He states that there is nothing on record to show that the wall was deliberately demolished by present revision applicants. He contends that it was "vis major" and he cannot be blamed for it. He further states that in any case the debris of the wall has been removed from lane later on and the lane is free for use of non-applicant. He, therefore, states that there was absolutely no reason warranting order of detention of revision applicants in civil prison.

(3.) AS against this, Advocate B. N. Mohta appearing for non-applicant raised a preliminary objection and further contends that the revision applicants deliberately demolished the wall and further did not permit the plaintiff to remove debris from the said lane. He contends that the matter/was required to be reported to Gram Panchayat or police authorities and revision applicants also obstructed Grampanchayat servants from removing the debris. He contends that thus deliberate disobedience of the order of court is established. He states that if wall was not deliberately demolished by revision applicants they should have themselves removed the 2005 (1) ALL MR-Feb. debris or should have permitted the now applicant or other authorities to remove, the debris. According to him, no interference it called for in the concurrent impugned ordered