CHHAGAN LAL JAISWAL THROUGH LRS. POORAN CHAND JAISWAL AND OTHERS Vs. KAMAL CHAND JAIN THROUGH LRS. GULAB BAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 16 -7 -2001 passed by the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge. East Nimar, Khandwa in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/99 confirming thereby the order dated 5 -9 -1998 passed by the Court of 1st Civil Judge. Class -I, East Nimar, Khandwa in M.J.C. No. 8/86. The revisionist is found to have committed breach of an order of temporary injunction and his property is kept under attachment with a direction that in case, if, the possession of the disputed property is not restored by the revisionist, the property kept under attachment be auctioned and the possession of the disputed property be restored to the respondents through Court.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to the revision application are that Prabodh Chand Jain and Choth Mal Jain were real brothers with Mool Chand Jain as their father. A compromise was entered into between the aforesaid two brothers and other members in Civil Appeal No. 1 -A/62 in the Court of District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa on 20 -11 -1962. This document is on record as Annexure No. 1. Half share was allotted to Prabodh Chand Jain whereas the remaining half share was allotted to Choth Mal Jain and members of his branch (it may be seen that partition was not effected by metes and bounds and actual delivery of possession pursuant to the said compromise was not made by Annexure No. 1), Prabodh Chand Jain and members of his branch executed a registered sale deed dated 7th June, 1967 in favour of the revisionist in respect of the portion allotted to them vide the aforesaid compromise. Ground floor portion of the aforesaid property was occupied by Punjab National Bank on rent. The revisionist is stated to have obtained possession on 7 -6 -1967 vide Annexure No. 3. The revisionist instituted Civil Suit No. 1 -B/73 against the Punjab National Bank for recovery of rent which was decreed in his favour to the tune of Rs. 1998/ - by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Khandwa on 20 -2 -1973 as contained in Annexure No. 3A. In Civil Suit No. 71 -A/60 (giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 1A/62) an order was passed on 18 -12 -1974 restraining the revisionist from entering into the possession of the accommodation held by and to be vacated by Punjab National Bank, Khandwa either personally or through others on vacation thereof. The revisionist was further restrained from interfering into the possession till the final decision of the suit. Copy of this order is placed on record as Annexure No. 4 (it is important to note that in Annexure No. 4, presence of the revisionist through his counsel is duly recorded and a temporary injunction was issued expressly and specifically against him). An appeal was preferred by the revisionist against the order of temporary injunction which was dismissed on the ground that the temporary injunction having been passed under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Misc. Appeal against the same was not maintainable. It is also relevant that a receiver was appointed by the Civil Court to obtain the possession of the Punjab National Bank and deliver it to the respondents. An Hotel in the name of 'NAIVEDHYAM HOTEL' was to be inaugurated and opened by the respondents and invitation cards were duly distributed for the same. It has been stated by the respondents that the revisionist in contravention of the order of temporary injunction forcibly occupied a part of the disputed premises by breaking the locks and started causing damage to it. The respondents thereafter submitted an application under Order 39, Rule 2 -A, Civil Procedure Code for breach of the order of temporary injunction. It was registered as M.J.C. No. 8/86. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence found vide order dated 5 -9 -1998 (Annexure/12A) that the revisionist has committed a breach of the order of temporary injunction and is thus, guilty of the same. Accordingly, his immovable property was attached for a period of six months. It has been further directed that in case, if, the possession of the disputed property is not restored to the respondent, the property under attachment be auctioned and the possession of the disputed property be restored to the respondents through the Court.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same the revisionist preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11/99 which has been dismissed vide order dated 16 -7 -2001 (Annexure No. 1). The orders contained in Annexure No. 12 -A and Annexure No. 1 have been challenged in the present revision application. It would not be out of place to mention here that the original revisionist, namely Chhaganlal Jaiswal died during the pendency of revision application, and the same is being continued and prosecuted by his L.Rs. after due substitution.