MURUGESA MUDALI Vs. ANGAMUTHU MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application to punish the petitioner for disobedience of an injunction issued by the District Munsiff's Court at Ranipet. It will be convenient to describe the parties with reference to their array here.

(2.) The petitioner had obtained a decree against one Kadirvelu Mudali, in O.S. No. 982 of 1928, for vacant possession of a piece of land on which part of a building stood. When the decree-holder went to take possession, he was resisted by the present respondent and M.P. No. 618 of 1932 was accordingly filed for removal of obstruction. An order for removal of obstruction was passed on 10 October, 1932 and it is agreed that early on the 11 of October the Amin, to whom the warrant to carry out that order had been entrusted, went to the locality which is about two miles from the Court premises to carry out that order. The evidence also shows that the petitioner was present during the time that the Amin was carrying out that order. On the 11 itself the respondent, against whom the order on M.P. No. 618 of 1932 had been passed, instituted O.S. No. 414 of 1932 apparently under Order 21, Rule 103 and on the same day he filed M.P. No. 1666 of 1932 for an order restraining the defendant by a temporary injunction from executing the decree in O.S. No. 982 of 1928 and thereby demolishing the building and taking possession of the same until disposal of the suit. The petition purported to be under Rules 1 and 2 presumably of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code and Sec. 151. This came on for orders some time after 2 P.M. on the 11 and the District Munsiff passed an order " notice and interim stay ".

(3.) The trouble in this case arises from the informal terms of the order on the injunction petition. A reference to Appendix F, Form No. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code will show how temporary injunctions are expected to be framed. The order actually served on the petitioner does not correspond to the terms of Form No. 8. It stated that an order of interim stay had been passed in respect of the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 982 of 1928 and proceeded to add that the petitioner was accordingly bound not to do so. It is common, ground that even before 2 P.M. on the 11 some portions of the building on the site in question had been demolished and it is also admitted by the petitioner that at about 6 P.M. that, evening he took formal delivery in terms of the receipt filed in this case. There was some question raised as to when the order of injunction was served on the petitioner, but I see no reason for not accepting the finding of the District Court that it must have been served upon him between 3 and 3-30 P.M. The learned District Judge himself finds that after service of this notice the petitioner must have gone to his vakil at Ranipet and taken his advice as to the further course to be followed. It also appears from the evidence that even during the petitioner's absence, as the petitioner's vakil in the main case was present when the temporary injunction petition came on for orders before the District Munsiff at 2 P.M., the District Munsiff orally informed the petitioner's vakil of the order that he was passing. It may therefore be presumed, as stated by the District Munsiff, that when the petitioner went to consult his vakil, the vakil would have advised him not to disobey the injunction. I do not therefore see sufficient reason to think that any demolition was likely to have taken place after the service of the order upon the petitioner.