MOHAN Vs. MATADIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. The applicant/defendant/judgment-debtor has filed this Revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 27/12 by the Additional District Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna dismissing his appeal as not maintainable, filed against the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Civil Judge class-I, Amarpatan in Misc. Civil Case No. 22/11, whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Order 21 Rule 32 r/w Section 151 of CPC on account of violation of ex-parte decree of perpetual injunction passed in COS No. 58-A/04 the applicant has been directed to send Civil Jail for one month.

(2.) It is noted that earlier to instant revision the aforesaid order of the appellate court dated 10.7.2012 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India by way of W.P. No. 12265/12 but on consideration by affirming the order of the appellate Court holding the Misc. Appeal is not entertainable, such W.P. was dismissed. However, liberty was extended to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding permissible under the law against the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I in Misc. Civil Case No. 22/11 and it appears that the applicant has preferred this revision under such liberty. But it is apparent from the cause title of the revision memo that instead to challenge the order dated 16.1.2012 the applicant has again challenge the aforesaid order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amarpatan in Misc. Appeal No. 27/12 while such order has already been upheld in the aforesaid earlier writ petition because the same was passed in appeal holding that the appeal is not entertainable by the district Court. So firstly, on this count only this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Inspite the aforesaid, I have heard the applicant's counsel at length.

(3.) Keeping in view the arguments of the applicant's counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order of the appellate court.