LILA KRISHAN Vs. HIMTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed by the orders passed by the trial Court under Order 39 rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and confirmed by the first appellate Court.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner-defendant. An interim injunction was sought in the said suit under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The injunction application was allowed by the trial Court on 16.1.2003. It is alleged by the respondent-plaintiff that the revision petitioner-defendant raised construction over the disputed plot on 13.2.2003 violating the order of injunction granted by the trial Court on 16.1.2003. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted a report on 15.2.2003 to the effect that construction had been raised over the plot in dispute. Praying to punish the revision petitioner-defendant, an application was moved before the trial Court by the respondent-plaintiff invoking the provisions under Order 39 rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The revision petitioner-defendant contended that he had not raised any construction in the disputed plot. He would state that he had raised construction only in his plot. He had not violated the orders passed by the trial Court as no injunction order was passed qua his plot over which construction was raised by him, it is further contended.