TANTA Vs. KURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASANTA predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction. In the said suit the defendants made a statement that no construction would be made on the land which is a Gali situated towards the western side of the house of the plaintiffs. Suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in view of the statement made by the defendants and their counsel, by restraining the latters permanently from raising any construction in the premises in dispute. Decree dated November 27,1987 was consequently drawn in the above terms.

(2.) BASANTA who is now represented by the respondents filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for detaining the judgment debtors in civil prison and for attachment of their property for disobeying the decree. It was alleged that they had put bricks in the street and had encroached street by putting cow dung cakes and thereby disobeyed the decree. It was also alleged that this in the only street for ingress and outgress to the house of the decree holder. In the end it was prayed that since the judgment debtors have not removed the encroachment they be punished.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners by reference to the statement of the defendants and their counsel, Annexure P-1 as also the decree sheet passed in that suit submitted that the judgment debtors only stated that no construction would be made on the land in the Gali and that it has not been found as a fact or otherwise that any construction has been raised by them and, therefore, the executing Court has erred in passing the order under revision. According to the learned counsel, stacking of bricks and putting of cow dung cakes and fixation of two hooks for tethering of catties did not amount to raising of construction and, therefore, the order under revision is not sustainable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the meaning of word 'construction' as contained in Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language (ANGLO-HINDI); Sadhu Singh v. District Board, A. I. R. 1962 Punjab 204 and M. L. Das and Sons v. Sampatmull Bothra, A. I. R. 1954 Calcutta 103. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent relied upon the meaning of word 'construction' as contained in the Websters 'dictionary 2nd Edition.