JAGSIR SINGH Vs. BEEBO @ KIRANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of violation of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 31.1.2001, the petitioner-judgment debtor has been directed to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month. Briefly, the facts are that a suit filed by respondent No. 1 for joint possession was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2001. The petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. In terms of the decree, the petitioner was restrained from alienating any portion of the suit property. In appeal before the learned lower appellate court, the judgment and decree was upheld. Regular Second Appeals filed by both the parties are pending in this court. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, there is no interim stay. Despite aforesaid decree being against the petitioner, he had mortgaged part of the property with Punjab National Bank to raise a loan and sold a part thereof to Sukhdev Singh. The decree holder filed application for initiating proceedings for contempt against the petitioner. Finding that the decree passed against the petitioner had been violated, vide order dated 27.1.2012, the learned court below directed the petitioner to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree holder in the present case had filed application for initiating proceedings for contempt of court for violation of the decree passed. The learned court below had suo-motu converted the same into petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, which could not be done. However, he did not dispute the fact that part of the property, regarding which the petitioner was restrained in the decree passed against him, had been mortgaged, whereas a part had been sold and further that in the Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioner before this court, there is no interim stay.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Once the fact that a decree passed in favour of the decree holder had been violated is brought to the notice of the court and also the fact that there was no interim stay in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree, the learned court below has not committed any illegality in proceeding under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for violation of the decree passed. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.