KAILASH DEVI Vs. MOHINDER PAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the appeal of defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) has been allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 10.02.2012 convicted them to undergo a simple imprisonment for a term of two months in view of the alleged willful disobedience of the ad interim order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the trial Court in civil suit instituted by the petitioner- plaintiff.

(2.) Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- plaintiff submits that the suit was instituted for joint possession in which ad interim order dated 09.04.2003 was passed whereby the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were restrained from alienating the suit property till 25.04.2003 which was subsequently extended upto 05.08.2003. The nature of the property was a rice seller, however, the respondents vide sale deed dated 29.08.2003 sold the land measuring 711 sq. yards i.e. 1 kanals 3 1/2 marlas being 47/262 share of land out of total land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas comprised in Khewat No.216, Khatoni No.316, Rect. No.220, Killa No.14 to respondent No.4. It is in this background of the matter, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was moved. The trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence realized that there was a willful disobedience of the order and convicted respondent Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment as noticed above, however, the lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal on the premise that the property in dispute was not identifiable. He submits that it was a share out of the property for which the joint possession has been sought for and therefore, defendants-respondents cannot wriggle out of the interim order and therefore, willful disobedience as the order of interim stay was in vogue. It is in this backdrop of the matter, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Notice of this revision petition was ordered. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been served through attorney and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also been served. There is no representation and this Court on 15.11.2016 recorded the satisfaction qua service.