LAWS(ORI)-1993-3-5

SAGARMAL SHARMA Vs. GAJANAN ALIAS GANJANA SHARMA

Decided On March 02, 1993
Sagarmal Sharma Appellant
V/S
Gajanan Alias Ganjana Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the petitioner. This Civil Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 5 -7 -1985 passed by the appellates Court under Order 39, Rule 2 -A, CPC.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed Title Suit No. 62 of 1982 praying for partition. During pendency of the suit plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC praying for injunction against the defendant from alienating schedules 'A' and 'B' properties described in the plaint until disposal of the suit. Application for injunction was registered as Misc. Case No. 86 of 1982. Ad interim injunction was passed on 16 -12 -1982 in the Misc. Case. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2 -A, CPC, on the allegation that defendant No. 1 has executed two sale deeds on 20 -12 -1982 violating the interim order of injunction passed in Misc. Case No. 86 of 1982. Defendant filed objection to the application under Order 39, Rule 2 -A CPC, and submitted that the injunction order has been passed in respect of M. S. holding No. 1628, plot No. 1628 area A -3. 42 decs The defendant had not sold any property, but his sons have sold some properties under Exts. 4 and 5 from M. S. holding No. 544 comprising of an area of A. 2. 61 decs. Since the order of injunction was passed in respect of M. S. holding No. 1628 and there was no order of ad interim injunction so far as M. S. holding No. 544 is concerned, the defendant has not violated any order of injunction.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed appeal against the order refusing to take any action under Order 39, Rule 2 -A, CPC. The learned appellate Court after observing that there is no dispute about the plot number, area and boundary which tallies and that it was nobody's case that plot No. 1628 under M. S. holding No. 1628 belongs to any of the parties, description of the holding number was typographical mistake and, therefore, though M. S. holding No. 1628 was there in the application for injunction and in the plaint, it has to be taken that ad interim injunction was passed regarding M. S. holding No. 544 and, therefore, the petitioner has violated the order of injunction and directed attachment of property of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,000/ -.