YUMLEMBAM HANGU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SATOKPAM NINGOL KHUMBONG MAYUM ONGBI RADHAMANI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition arises from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 16/78/2 of 1978, which was preferred against the order of learned Munsiff, Manipur, Imphal, dated 1.8.78 in judicial Misc. Case No. 40 of 1977, ordering for detention of the opposite parties in civil prison, for disobedience of temporary injunction issued by the Court on 15.6.78 in Tittle Suit No. 15 of 1977.

(2.) What happened is that after institution of the suit, the plaintiffs-petitioners prayed for temporary injunction against the defendants-opposite-party, the suit having been one of declaration of title, eviction and permanent injunction. After hearing both sides, the learned Munsiff passed the order of temporary injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from making any construction over the suit land and from occupying the construction till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came up to the Court under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C., supported by an affidavit alleging that the defendants No. 1 and 2 breached the terms of the temporary injunction by making further construction on the land and occupying the same. Both the parties adduced evidence on this matter and the learned Munsiff passed the aforesaid order, against which the appeal was preferred and the learned appellate Court set aside the order of detention of the defendants.

(3.) It is found that the learned Munsiff passed the order after disbelieving the witnesses of the plaintiffs but relying on an admission of the defendants to the effect that they have been occupying the land since May, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate Court accepted the finding of the learned Munsiff that the defendants admitted that they have been occupying the land since May, 1977. In spite of that the learned appellate Court found that the plaintiffs could not prove violation of injuction order. Moreover, he found that the learned Munsiff did not specify the period of detention of the defendants in the civil prison, for which the order is laconic. The learned appellate Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order.