STATE OF A P Vs. KANCHARANA RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein filed a suit being O.S. No. 310 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit is for declaration that classification of land admeasuring Acs. 7.00 in R.S. No. 13 of Madhavadhara Village, as poramboke land in the revenue records, is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the State of A.P. represented by District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Mandal Revenue Officer (Urban), Visakhapatnam in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.- By judgment and decree dated 7.6.1996, the trial Court allowed the suit declaring as well as granting injunction as prayed for.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants / appellants preferred appeal being A.S. No. 365 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Along with the appeal, the appellants filed LA. No. 1186 of 1996 under Order XLI Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for suspension of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. But the Trial Court by an order dated 21.1.1997 passed Interim orders suspending the decree, insofar as the same declares the classification, as illegal. Be that as it is, the respondents herein filed LA. No.954 of 1998 under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of CPC alleging that in spite of the orders of the Appellate Court dated 21.1.1997, the second respondent removed the fencing around the suit schedule property laid by the plaintiffs / respondents. In the said application, the respondents prayed for grant of attachment of the properties of the second appellant and also for detention of the Mandal Revenue Officer for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of permanent injunction granted by the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No.310 of 1992. By impugned order dated 26.10. 1998, the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam having come to the conclusion that there is disobedience of the permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court, sentenced the second appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one day. This is subject-matter of this C.M.A.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for arbitration submits that when the respondents have already filed execution petition before the Trial Court being E.P. No.388 of 1996, they ought to have proceeded under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. Secondly, he would urge that an application under Rule 2 A of Order XXXIX CPC would lie only when an ad interim injunction is granted by the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, and the violation of the decree for permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court, if any, does not come within the powers conferred under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC. Alternatively, he contends that the second appellant did not violate the order of injunction and acting bona fide, he only initiated steps to protect the Government land.