MADHUBALA Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-42
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 14,2012

MADHUBALA Appellant
VERSUS
VIRENDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RESPONDENTS instituted Civil Suit No. 8 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani to restrain the petitioner from interfering in the land shown in the map annexed with the plaint. Respondents also filed an application under Order XXXIV Rule 1 of C.P.C. On 01.02.2000, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani granted ex -parte interim injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the land in dispute. After receiving the notice of suit; the petitioner filed her objection. The petitioner also filed an application for spot inspection of the site for bringing real picture on record. However, said application of the petitioner was rejected. In the meantime, the respondents also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 -A of C.P.C., stating that the petitioner came over the part of the land in suit on 09.02.2000 with intention to take possession started changing nature of the land and also started digging the same. Prayer was made for punishing the petitioner for violating the injunction order. Objection to said application was filed by the petitioner. The Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani passed an order on 08.12.2006, holding the petitioner guilty of disobedience of ex -parte injunction order dated 01.02.2000 and petitioner was ordered to undergo imprisonment of 14 days. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 05 of 2007, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Haldwani on 15.09.2009. Thereafter, present petition was filed challenging the orders dated 15.09.2009 and 01.02.2000.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) SHRI Bhupender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, civil suit instituted by the respondents has been dismissed and interim order dated 01.02.2000 has come to an end. He argued that since the suit itself has been dismissed and interim order has come to an end, the petitioner cannot be punished for violating the interim order dated 01.02.2000 and orders passed by the Courts below, punishing the petitioner for violating interim injunction order, deserves to be set aside. Shri J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that atthe time when the petitioner violated the order, the interim injunction order dated 01.02.2000 was in operation and in view of this fact, the order passed by the trial Court, punishing the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2 -A of the C.P.C., does not require interference.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.