BADRI LAL Vs. MANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BADRI Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents from raising construction on the disputed site and also applied for grant of temporary injunction. After notice of the application for temporary injunction was served on the defendants, the temporary injunction was granted on 17. 2. 1987 to maintain status-quo regarding construction and that order was extended from time to time till the next dates of hearing and one of the dates was 28. 4. 1987. On 28. 4. 1987, the advocates were not attending the courts as they had decided to abstain from work (strike ). The court looked into the matter and extended the stay till next date of hearing and fixed 5. 5. 1987 as the next date. On 5. 5. 1987, the plaintiff filed an application under order 39 rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as the defendants started raising construction from 28. 4. 1987. The trial court recorded evidence on this application and the plaintiff also produced some documents besides oral witnesses. The trial court, vide order dated 8. 9. 1989, directed the defendants to be put in civil prison for three months for violating the interim order passed by the trial court on 28. 4. 1987. The defendants took the matter in appeal and, Shri S. C. Shrotriya, Civil Judge, Tonk, vide order dated 31. 7. 1992, allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the defendants were not bound by the order of extending the stay passed on 28. 4. 1987. This is plaintiffs revision.

(2.) AFTER considering the matter, I am of the view that Civil Judge fell in grave error in saying that an order passed by the court extending stay on the date on which the lawyers are not attending the courts would not bind the parties. In this case, order of injunction was operating from 17. 2. 1987 and was extended from time to time. The defendants knew that stay order was operating upto 28. 4. 1987 and, even if, lawyers were not to attend the courts, the Judges were to hold their courts and were entitled to pass orders whether in presence or in absence of the parties in the interest of justice. The courts do not pass orders which are to be violated by the parties as has been so done in this case. The courts have to see that their orders are obeyed. In this case, it is strange that Civil Judge says that order of court extending the stay from 28. 4. 1987 till 5. 5. 1987 was not binding on the defendants.

(3.) THE record be sent back to the District Judge, Tonk alongwith a copy of this order expeditiously so as to reach there before the next date of hearing. .