LAWS(APH)-1965-3-14

M AMRITLAL Vs. P SRINIVAS RAO

Decided On March 16, 1965
M.AMRITLAL Appellant
V/S
P.SRINIVAS RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the judgment debtor Morya Amritlal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Khammam in C.M.P. No. 65 of 1959 in O.S. No. 12 of 1958 on his file.

(2.) The short facts are as follows: One P. Srinivas Rao (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) sued Amritlal in O.S. No. 12 of for recovery of Rs. 26,885-9-2 on the foot of a promissory note for O.S. Rs.18000.00 and that was subsequently decreed as prayed for. Even before the suit was decreed, the decree-holder obtained an interim injunction on 14-7-1958 restraining the judgment debtor from alienating his immoveable properties i.e. three houses in Khammam Municipality and some others. The suit was decreed on 31-12-1958 and on the same day the order of injunction previously passed was made absolute. The judgment debtor notwithstanding the injunction order, alienated the three houses in Khammam under two registered sale deeds, Ex. A-3 dated 31-3-1959 for Rs.3,800.00 and Ex. A-4 dated 31-3-1959 for Rs.2,500.00. The decree holder thereupon filed C.M.P. 65/59 under Order 39 R. 2 C.P.C. for detention of the respondent in civil prison for disobedience of the said order. The judgment-debtor had not filed any counter notwithstanding the fact that many opportunities were given to him for that purpose. Very curiously his counsel did not even address any argument on his behalf, and the matter had to be decided ex parte. Eventually, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petitioner to be detained in civil prison for one month.

(3.) In appeal against this order Sri Deshmukh raised the following contentions on behalf of the petitioner. (1) That the Court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction after the suit was decreed. (2) Since the injunction order was without jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot be committed to civil prison for its disobedience. (3) Though there might have been a violation and disobedience of the order, it may be condoned. We shall now examine the validity of these contentions.