SATYANARAYAN Vs. RAM NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order passed under Order 39, Rule 2-A C.P.C. by the learned District Judge. Merta dated Jan. 15. 1983. The learned District Judge found as a fact that the appellants had disobeyed the order of temporary injunction passed by that court and they unlawfully took possession of the shop in dispute, in derogation of the order of temporary in-'junction. He, therefore, directed that each one of the appellants be detained in civil prison for a period of 7 days.

(2.) In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for a declaration that the sale deed dated July 24. 1978 executed by the appellant Sat-yanarayan in favour of the wives of appellants Nos. 2 to 4 was ineffective against the plaintiff and for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed a temporary injunction was passed by the learned District Judge. Merta on March 3. 1982 restraining the defendants in that suit from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in dispute and from damaging the said shop in any manner. The learned District Judge also directed the defendants to maintain status quo. After a few days, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 39. Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging that the appellants had broken open the lock of the shop and that they had removed the Roods and had made structural alterations inside the shop by removing the intervening wall. Another application was moved on Dec. 3. 1982 by the plaintiff-respondent praying that the condition of the shop as it existed on Mar. 3. 1982 should be restored and the appellants should be directed to make payment of compensation for the loss caused to him on account of alterations made therein and that the appellants should also be punished for the disobedience of the injunction order passed by the Court on March 3. 1962. The learned District Judge by his order dated January 15. 1983 came to the conclusion that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court on March 3. 1982 and had unlawfully taken over possession of the shop in dispute and had made alterations therein. The trial court consequently directed the appellants to restore possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent, after putting the said shop in the same condition in which it was on March 3. 1982. It was also directed that a Commissioner be appointed to assess the damage caused to the plaintiff- respondent on account of demolition of structures and alterations made in the shop. The learned District Judge also directed that each one of the appellants be detained in civil prison for a period of 7 days, on account of the disobedience or breach of the injunction order committed by them.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants did not advance any arguments on merits. He did not contest the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge on the question that the appellants had forcibly taken over possession of the shop in dispute and had unlawfully demolished the structures and thereby wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court on March 3. 1982. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants before me was that the appellants crave the mercy of the court and that they tender unqualified apology for their conduct find pray that the court may graciously accept their apology. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended before me that the conduct of the appellants shows that they have no regard to the dignity of the court as they took the law in their own hands and unlawfully took over possession of the shop in dispute and demolished the intervening wall and wilfully disobeyed the injunction order issued by the trial court, regardless of the consequence and that the conduct of the appellant was reprehensible. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent referred to the decision? of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1960 SC 946: Mulkh Raj v. The State of Punjab. AIR 1972 SC 1197. and Mohd. Osman Shaheed v. Mohd. Baqur Hussain Shaa. 1980 Cri LJ 845 and urged that this Court should reject the apology tendered by the appellants and the punishment of detention in civil prison imposed by the trial court should not be interfered with by this Court in the aforesaid circumstances.