GOBINDA PARIDA Vs. CHAKRADHARA ROUTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 115, C. P. C. against the appellate order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kendrapara reversing the action of the learned Munsif on an application under Order 39, Rule 2 (3), Civil P. C. There was ad interim injunction against the petitioners who were defendants in a pending suit (T. S. No. 185 of 1965) in the court of the Munsif, Kendrapara restraining them from cutting away the paddy. It is alleged that in spite of the service of the order of injunction on 20/8/1965 the petitioners cut and removed the paddy crop. Evidence was taken and the learned Munsif found that there had been a violation of the order of injunction in spite of service of notice, but he did not give any punishment. The lower appellate court on the findings recorded by the learned Munsif came to hold that this was a case where the violators should be punished for violation of injunction. It, therefore, directed that movable properties valued at Rs. 100 of the petitioners be kept under attachment. It is against this order that the present civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised a contention that the injunction having ultimately been dissolved the learned Subordinate Judge should not have visited the petitioners with any punishment. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1960 All 231, Monoharlal v. Prem Shankar Tondon. I find it difficult to accept the contention of MR. Patnaik in view of the fact that on the date of the impugned action there was injunction in force. In such a matter what the Court is concerned with is not the ultimate decision in the matter, but as to whether on the date the impugned act was committed it was in violation of an existing restraint order to the knowledge of the violators. In the circumstances, I cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below that there has been violation, nor do I propose to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate court that it is a case where there should be punishment.