KHADEER KHAN Vs. OMER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 365 of 2006 in the Court of iii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the appellant and two others, for the relief of partition and separate possession of suit schedule property comprised in three schedules. He has also filed I. A. No. 898 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against the appellant alone, with a prayer to restrain him from alienating an item of property in schedule III admeasuring Acs. 5. 00 at Jawaharnagar. An order of ad interim injunction was passed on 12. 06. 2006. The trial Court made the same absolute on 08. 03. 2007.

(2.) ALLEGING that the appellant has violated the order of injunction, the respondent filed I. A. No. 218 of 2007 before XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC with a prayer to send the appellant herein to civil prison. It was alleged that despite the order of temporary injunction, the appellant alienated part of the land by entrusting it to development to third parties. The appellant filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made against him. He pleaded that long before filing the suit, he executed an agreement of sale on 14. 02. 2005. He has furnished the particulars of the persons, in whose favour the documents were executed. He further pleaded that land in Survey No. 314, property in Schedule iii, was not available with him as on the date of filing of the suit. Through its order, dated 06. 07. 2009, the trial Court allowed the I. A. and directed that the appellant be committed to the Civil Prison for one month. The same is challenged in this CMA.

(3.) SRI Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained on facts or in law. He further submits that except making a vague and general allegation, the respondent did not substantiate the plea as to alienation and that the civil liberty of the appellant was meddled with, on the basis of such unfounded allegations. He contends that no oral evidence was adduced, much less, any documents through which the alienation is said to have taken place, have been filed. He also submits that the trial Court was mostly impressed by the photographs marked as Exs. P. 2 to P. 12 and an encumbrance certificate marked as ex. P. 1.