STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SUBRATA KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Miss R. Chakravorty, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No. 3 as well as Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents.

(2.) THIS Revision petition has been carried from the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) - 1, Karimganj in T. Execution Case No. 1/95 by which the petitioner No. 3 was made liable for punishment under Order 21, Rule 32(1) of the C.P.C. for wilful violation of the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1993 passed in T.S. No. 87/91 and consequently directing him to be detained in civil prison for 15 days.

(3.) HARPING on his first limb of argument, Mr. Rahman has submitted that the respondents, being the Decree -holder (for short D.H), after initiation of Execution Case being T. Execution No. 28/93 for execution of decree for declaration of title and for realization of costs and permanent injunction as well, preferred an application with the prayer to send the petitioner No. 3/Judgment Debtor (herein after referred to as J -D) to civil prison for wilful violation of the decree passed by the competent civil Court as already noticed above. The Executing Court by order dated 2.1.1995 refused to allow the prayer for execution of the permanent injunction as no prima -facie case was made out by the D -H and thereafter on the prayer of the D.H, the Execution Case was allowed to be withdrawn due to formal defect. But at the same time, by the said order itself, the Executing Court rejected the prayer for sending J.D to civil prison as prayed for. The operative part of the said order may be extracted as under : -