SITA RAM SAHU Vs. LACHMI NARAIN SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 2, Sita Ram, who has been ordered to be put into civil jail in that he deliberately disobeyed the injunction order issued by the learned Subordinate Judge in connexion with a partition suit pending before him in the following circumstances. On 15 November 1943, the plaintiffs, who are the minor sons-of defendant 1, and plaintiff 3 filed a petition supported by an affidavit that they apprehended that the defendants would remove the crops standing on the land and if they removed them the plaintiffs would be put to great loss and inconvenience and they prayed that a pleader commissioner be appointed with direction to proceed at once to make an estimate of the probable produce. The contesting defendants other than defendant 1, who is the father of the plaintiffs, as I have just stated, are the step-brothers of plaintiffs 1 and 2. On 26th November 1943, the plaintiffs put another petition stating that defendant 1 is an old man and is under the clutches of defendants 2 and 3 who are putting all sorts of difficulties in the way of the plaintiffs and have stopped all rations and expenses and therefore they prayed that the commissioner be directed to get the paddy crops harvested and thrashed and to deposit the same in Court so that there may be no difficulty to the plaintiffs to get their share of the produce, otherwise they will starve. A few days later on 30 November the plaintiffs filed another petition stating that it is apprehended that the defendants will cut away the standing paddy crops and prayed that injunction be issued restraining the defendants from cutting the paddy crops until further orders. After hearing the plaintiffs the Court was satisfied that as the season for cutting the paddy crops had already come it was necessary to restrain the defendants from cutting paddy until further orders were passed by the Court. Accordingly he issued an injunction restraining the defendants from cutting paddy until further orders of the Court. This injunction order was served upon the defendants on 3 December 1943.

(2.) Thereafter the plaintiffs put another application on 14 December 1943, stating that notwithstanding the issue of the injunction order the defendants have reaped, the crops of 8 bighas of land situated in one place. On 16 December 1943, defendants 2 to 4 put in a petition stating that they are ready to offer security to the extent of the value of the share claimed by the plaintiffs and prayed that the produce be released on taking security from them. On 17th December, the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties thought that it was just, and proper to allow the defendants to take the whole of the produce if they gave security of Rs. 1000 for the plaintiffs share and Rs. 300 for the share of defendant 1 and ordered that after executing the security bonds the defendants could take the whole of the produce.

(3.) On subsequent dates the proposed draft was approved by the learned Subordinate Judge and he directed that the duly executed document should be filed by the defendants by 22 December, 1943. On that date the security bond was not filed by the defendants, but on the other hand the plaintiffs filed a petition stating that the defendants have cut away all the crops standing on all the areas, that is to say from 8 bighas they had already cut as stated in the earlier petition which has been referred to by me and from the other areas between 19 and 20 December, and, therefore, it was prayed that defendants 2 and 3 having deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court should be proceeded against in accordance with law. The Court by Order No. 24 states that the execution of the bond now is not necessary when the paddy has been stated to have been cut away. On 15 January 1944, having heard the plaintiffs the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case for disobeying the order of injunction and contempt of Court had been established and therefore he directed the defendants to come and show cause. On 14 March 1944, the plaintiffs put in another petition supported by an affidavit that the rabi crops are ready for harvesting and the defendants are making endeavour to harvest the same and, therefore, they prayed that this produce, i.e., the potatoes, etc., should be attached by the Court and the defendants should be restrained from harvesting them. The Court issued an interim injunction restraining1 the defendants from harvesting this produce.