JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-2-2002, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Jammu whereby Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal has been dismissed and order of trial Court dated 16-1-2002 has been upheld.

(2.) The incontrovertible facts leading up to this revision are that Des Raj-plaintiff came to institute a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant-petitioner to the effect that he be permanently restrained to eject him from the suit shop without following due process of law. Alongside he came to file an application before the trial Court for the issuance of ad-interim injunction to the effect that petitioner-defendant be restrained to interfere with his possession with respect to suit shop till the final decision of the suit. This ad interim application came to be disposed of by the trial Court directing the petitioner-defendant to repair the roof top of the suit shop within a particular period. It appears that the petitioner failed to comply with the direction of the Court. On 16-1-2002 the respondent-plaintiff came to approach before the trial Court through the medium of an application for seeking attachment of the property of the defendant for the wilful dis-obedience of the Court order on his part. On 16-1-2002 the learned trial Court without issuing notice to the petitioner-defendant came to direct the SDPO, R.S. Pura, to look into the matter and arrest the petitioner and send him to the District Jail, Jammu (Civil Prison) for a period of one week, with a further direction to report compliance to the Court. This order came to be challenged before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in an appeal. The learned appellate Court by virtue of impugned order came to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) The stand of Mr. Johal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the trial Court committed an error of law by not issuing notice of the application to the petitioner-defendant, whereby the respondent-plaintiff sought attachment of the property of the petitioner/defendant because of the disobedience of the Court order on his part. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court amounts to passing of the order on the asking of the respondents-plaintiff. He further submits that the petitioner-defendant has been condemned unheard in the matter. The order recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are uncalled for, and there is apparent error in passing the said orders.