MADHUBALA Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.