ABDUL MATIN Vs. SHAMSHUL HODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order dated 26.5.1990 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1987 affirming the order dated 19.11.1987 passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1984 whereby the Petitioners were ordered to be detained in civil prison under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for disobedience of the order of status quo and residential house of the Petitioners was attached.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1984 on 30.1.1984 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for premanent injunction restraining the Defendants-Petitioners for changing the configuration of the suit property by making any further construction. On the same day i.e. 30.1.1984 an order to maintain status quo was passed and directed for issuance of notice to the Petitioners, on 1.2.1984 the process server reported that Petitioner No. 1 refused to receive the notice. On the same day i.e. 1.2.1984 a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for local inspection of the suit property and to submit a report thereafter on 2.2.1984. The Pleader Commissioner held local inspection without any notice to the Petitioners and, reported that the construction was going on over the suit property. The opposite party thereafter filed an application stating therein that they should be punished for violation of the order of the court as they were continuing construction inspite of service of notice. On the said application a miscellaneous case was registered in which both the parties adduced evidence. The court held that the Petitioners have violated the order of status quo and ordered them to be detained in civil prison for a period of two months and their residential house was attached. The appellate court also affirmed the order of the trial court by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners says that no notice was served on Petitioner No. 2. The alleged service of notice on Petitioner No. 1 has not been proved by the opposite party. The Pleader Commissioner was appointed in absence of the Petitioners and he also made local inspection without any notice to the Petitioners. The Petitioners had no knowledge about the order passed in the title suit nor any notice was served to them.