Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice need not be issued to the respondents in view of the order being passed herein. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.07.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2013 (Rauf Hussain and others Vs. Dr. Arif Hussain and others) on an application Paper No. 4 -C filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) LEARNED counsel states that Original Suit No. 03 of 2013 () was decreed by the trial court on 04.08.2008 where against First Appeal No. 600 of 2008 (Abdul Haseeb Khan Vs. Jalaluddin & others), First Appeal No. 684 of 2008 (Yaseen Ahmad Faridi & others Vs. Jalaluddin & others), First Appeal No. 722 of 2008 (Anjuman -e -Ishat -e -Muselmanan Vs. Jalaluddin & others) and First Appeal No. 727 of 2008 (Jalaluddin Vs. Anjuman Ishat -e -Talim Muselmanan Budaun and others) were filed before this Court, however, he submits that no interim order against the decree dated 04.08.2008 of the trial court is operating in the said first appeals. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners filed the application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which by the impugned order only notices have been issued and on the stay application filed alongwith application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure no orders have been passed. According to learned counsel, the respondents are illegally disturbing the rights of the petitioners regarding membership of the Society and hence the impugned order requires to be set aside. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, the record of the above said first appeals were summoned from the office. A perusal of the record indicates that there is no interim order operating in any of the above said first appeals. As such the decree of the trial court has not been stayed in the said first appeals.
(3.) THE provision of Order XXI Rule 32 are quoted hereunder: - 32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. -(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced [in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (3) Where any attachment under sub -rule (1) or sub -rule (2) has remained in force for [six months] if the judgment -debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree -holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree -holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment -debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment -debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of [six months] from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree -holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment -debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. [Explanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'the act required to be done' covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions.];