- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 11-12-1989 of Munsif, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 67 of 1988 and also the appellate order dated 22-1-1990 of XIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra in Misc. Appeal No. 253 of 1989. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) Ram Babu Jain (original respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) filed O.S. No. 227 of 1985 against the petitioners Gyan Chand Jain, Umesh Chand Jain and Padam Chand Jain for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession in any manner over the ground floor of house No. 35 or causing any damage or throwing any dirty article therein. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the petitioners (defendants) were the owner landlords of house No. 35 and he was a tenant thereof in the ground floor. The plaintiff had been paying rent to the defendants regularly but they wanted to evict him forcibly and in an unlawful manner and with that end view they were causing damage to the property and throwing dirty articles in the tenanted portion. The plaintiff moved an injunction application 7-C on which the learned Munsif passed ex parte injunction order on 4-11-1985 directing the defendants to maintain status quo on the spot, not to demolish any portion of the property and not to interfere in the plaintiff's possession except in accordance with law. While passing this order, the learned Munsif fixed 3-12-1985 for appearance of the defendants and the injunction order was directed to be operative till that date. It appears that this injunction order was extended on 3-12-1985. The plaintiff moved an application sometime in the year 1987 under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging that the defendants had demolished a portion of the roof and the drainage pipe and thereby committed breach of the injunction order. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 67 of 1987. The plaintiff moved two other similar applications under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging that the defendants had committed breach of the injunction order and they were registered as Misc. Case No. 68 of 1987 and Misc. Case No. 6 of 1989. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Munsif decreed the Suit and passed a decree for injunction against the defendants. He also held the defendants guilty under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 67 of 1987 and directed that each of the defendants be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. Similarly in Misc. Case No. 68 of 1987, each of the defendants were ordered to be detained in civil prison for a period of two months and in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1989 each of the defendants were directed to be detained for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11-12-1989 of the learned Munsif, the defendants filed a regular First Appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. and three Misc. Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. The Misc. Appeal against the order of learned Munsif passed in Misc. Case No. 67 of 1987 which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1989 was dismissed on 22-1-1990 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The other two Misc. Appeals which were preferred against the order of learned Munsif passed in Misc. Case No. 68 of 1987 and Misc. Case No. 6 of 1989 were allowed and the order directing the defendants to be detained in civil prison for a period of two months and three months respectively was set aside.
(3.) I have heard Sri G.R. Jain for the petitioners, Sri S. Harkauli for the contesting respondents and have examined the record.;