BRIJENDRA PRASAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the plaintiff is directed against an order of the 3rd Additional District Jugde of Muzaffarpur dated the 25th September, 1962.

(2.) The necessary facts may be shortly stated. Admittedly a Government hat is held on plot No. 3532. The plaintiff has two raiyati plots, viz., Plots Nos. 3530 and 3531, close to plot No. 3532. The plaintiff has instituted Title Suit No. 132 of 1961 in the Munsif 1st Court at Muzaffarpur. He has alleged in that suit that a hat is held on his two raiyati plots. He has also alleged that officers of the Government, including the Block Development Officer, Sahra, disturb the holding of the hat by the plaintiff in his two plots, and drive out the hawkers. Among the reliefs which he has prayed for in the plaint is for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the State and the Block Development Officer, from disturbing the hat held in survey plots Nos. 3530 and 3531 by driving out the shop keepers and hawkers therefrom forcibly and also from forbidding the plaintiff from holding his hat as he has been doing. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff filed a petition graying for ad interim injunction in the same terms in which he has claimed his relief for issue of a permanent injunction in his plaint. His prayer was granted by an order dated the 3rd June, 1961. The injunction order was served on the 6th June. On the 10th June, the plaintiff filed a petition in which he alleged that certain officers of the Government had infringed the order of injunction, on the 6th June and the 9th June, 1961. He prayed for action against the offending officers under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He again filed a petition on the 15th June to the effect that some officers had violated the order or injunction again on the 13th June.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge has held that it was not proved that the Block Development Officer ever violated the order of injunction; but, in coming to this conclusion, he has not taken into consideration the allegations relating to the incidents which took place on the 13th June. He has also held that, since the plaintiff had proceeded only against the State and the Block Development Officer, it was not necessary for him to consider whether other officers of the Government had infringed the order of injunction.