TEJINDER SINGH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner for punishing respondent No. 1 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the breach of injunction granted against her on 8th June, 1978 has concurrently been dismissed by the Lower Courts. The operative part of this injunction order reads as follows :-

(2.) THE whole case of the petitioner is to show lack of justification to dispossess him is that firstly he was not a party to the proceedings which resulted in the passing of the order dated 17th May, 1979, by the Rent Controller and rather the respondent had successfully thwarted his being impleaded as a party to that litigation right upto this Court and, secondly, before executing that order, the respondent should have at least sought permission of the Court which had granted the temporary injunction dated 8th June, 1978 against her, before executing the order of the Rent Controller dated 17th May, 1979. I see no merit in this contentions.

(3.) SO far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I do not think the respondent was under any such obligation to seek permission of the Court passing the order dated 8th June, 1978, before executing the order of the Rent Controller dated 17th May, 1979, passed in her favour. The very order dated 8th June, 1978 entitled the respondent to take possession of the house in question "in due course of law. This latter expression does not mean in any thing more than "procedure established by law-" I cannot think of a better legal or due course than through the law Courts themselves.