LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. HARPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated October 22, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the order dated April 28, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur was allowed and the present petitioner-Lakhbir Singh was ordered to be [detained in civil prison for a period of three months with a further direction that the trial Court would attach his property for awarding appropriate compensation to the applicants for violation of the injunction orders.

(2.) A suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the original plaintiff-Saroop Singh (since dead) for directing defendants-Lakhbir Singh and Iqbal Singh to remove the construction of malba in specific portion of the land in dispute. Along with the aforesaid suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") was filed. Vide order dated December 17, 1994, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the actual position obtaining at the spot regarding the nature of the suit property and also report as to whether any construction was raised or was being made in the suit property, if so by whom and the nature of the construction. A Local Commissioner was also directed to visit the spot and conduct the inspection in the presence of the parties by serving an appropriate notice, if possible.

(3.) Subsequently, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was filed by the plaintiff with the averments that the injunction order dated December 17, 1994 had been violated by defendant-Lakhbir Singh inasmuch as in spite of the status quo order, the said defendant had raised the construction of the shop in dispute at the spot in question. The plaintiff claimed that since there was a Violation, therefore, the aforesaid defendant Was liable to be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code and appropriate action should be taken against him.