VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH Vs. CHANDRA MANI TIWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARED counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the sole opposite party.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.4.2007, whereby and whereunder, the Munsif, Bhabua in Title Suit No. 4 of 1998 had issue certain directions to the Officer Incharge, Bhabua Police Station to get the suit Pasta free from any impediment or encroachment and to impediment the order of the court by restraining the defendant -petitioners from raising any further hindrances on the suit land till pendency of the suit, in terms of the order of injunction dated 27.8.2004 passed by the District Judge, Kaimur in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant - petitioner has made a very short but an attractive submission. He submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the court below (Munsif) on an application filed by the sole opposite party was itself not maitainable, in as much as, the order of injunction was passed by the appellate court, the Court of District Judge, Bhabua in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004 and as such in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the allegation of violation of the injunction order was to be looked into for any purpose whatsoever, it could be done by the Court of the District Judge, Bhabua who alone could have entertained such plea of the opposite party.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Omprakash Upadhayay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party submits that as nothing was pending before the District Judge after disposal of the miscellaneous appeal, the question of violation of injunction order passed by the District Judge could have been gone into by the Court of Munsif itself who was in seisin of the matter, i.e.. Title Suit No. 4 of 1998.