SUDHIR NAMASUDRA AND ORS. Vs. PURNENDU KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE moot questions raised in the civil revision are: - -

(2.) THE present petitioners were not parties in title suit No. 26 of 1970 instituted by the opposite party in which an order of injunction had been passed against the defendant Aswini (since dead). Late Aswini was injuncted not to enter into the suit land. There was no order rendered by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge injuncting his servants, agents, workmen or relations in the manner set out in form No. 8 of Schedule 1, Appendix 'F' of the C. P. C. The forms given in the Appendix are statutory forms as enjoined under Order 48 Rule 3 read with Section 121 of the C. P. C. However, the forms are subject to alteration by the High Court under Section 121 of the C. P. C. Form 'P -18' has been prescribed by Gauhati High Court in Civil Rules and Orders Vol. II page 278. It clearly shows that a Court being satisfied can injunct a defendant and also other persons like agents, servants, relations etc. of the party. The indubitable position in the present case is that there was no order of injunction against the petitioners. Violation of an injunction is punishable under the Code itself. The nature of the proceeding and quality of evidence which are required to be proved and established may not be of the standard of criminal proceedings. Undoubtedly the proceedings are punitive in nature. It is an established law that allegations like fraud, undue influence establishment of violation of order of injunction being punitive proceedings require stricter proof than civil actions.

(3.) IN my opinion, when an appellate Court hears an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) it is an ordinary rule that findings arrived at by the trial court on appraisal of evidence recorded by him on noting the demeanour of the witnesses ought not to be disturbed unless the findings arrived at are such that it amounted to abuse of the process of the Court or caused injustice. The trial court has held that (1) the witnesses for the plaintiff were discrepant on all material particulars; (2) there was material variation of the case presented by the plaintiff in his application for violation of order of injunction and the case put forward in Court; (3) although on the own admission of the plaintiff there were independent and disinterested witnesses who had witnessed the alleged violation and whose names clearly appeared in the application of the plaintiff, they were not examined in court without assigning any reason. As such it has drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiff and disbelieved his allegation as to the alleged violation of the injunction by the petitioners and late Aswini.