LAXMAN TUKARAM DURGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had absconded though they were ordered to be arrested by the IV Additional District Judge. FACTS

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the order was passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Nagpur, directing that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be arrested and sent to the Civil Prison in addition to the order of attachment of their property as ordered by the trial Court.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this criminal contempt petition, respondent No. 2 expired and hence his name has been deleted from the contempt petition. In the present case, an order was passed by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit and the application for temporary injunction is allowed. It was alleged that there was a breach of the said order of injunction and, therefore, the trial Court passed an order on an application under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure holding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of committing breach of order of injunction and the trial Court directed that the property of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be attached. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. An order was passed in this appeal by the IV Additional District Judge, Nagpur in which he directed that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be sent to Civil Prison for a period of one month in addition to the order of attachment of their property as ordered by the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that since the respondents had absconded and had not surrendered before the police they had committed criminal contempt of the Court and it amounted to interference in a due course of justice and obstruction in the administration of justice. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is void ab initio as no appeal was maintainable against the said order and, therefore, the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass the said order.