SHEESH RAM Vs. HARISH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has made the construction on his own land, for which there is no stay, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error in not only directing the petitioner to demolish that construction but also sentencing him to undergo one months imprisonment. Learned counsel tried to show the photographs and certain documents, which. I have dis-allowed because that is not the scope of revision petition.

(2.) Going through the orders passed by the Court below, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error, much less jurisdictional error which calls for interference of this Court with its powers under Sec. 115, CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel has tried to rely upon the decisions, of Allahabad High Court reported in. AIR 1973 All 449 and of this Court reported in, 1990 (2) RLR 720. The facts of the case before Allahabad High Court were totally different than the facts of this case. That judgment has no application to the facts of this case, therefore. I have not dealt with the same in detail. The judgment of this Court cited by learned counsel has clearly said that there should be intention and injury caused. Both these ingredients are existing in the instant case. The attitude of the petitioner is not only required to be condemned but also required to be viewed very seriously. If in this way the Courts are taken for granted then sanctity of the orders of the Courts will be lost. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner to demolish the construction and also imposing sentence of one months imprisonment. In fact, in my view, the trial Court took a liberal view in imposing sentence of one month's imprisonment only. These type of cases are required to be viewed very seriously.