MITTAL, CJ. - (1.) BADRI Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents from raising construction on the disputed site and also applied for grant of temporary injunction. After notice of the application for temporary injunction was served on the defendants, the temporary injunction was granted on 17. 2. 1987 to maintain status-quo regarding construction and that order was extended from time to time till the next dates of hearing and one of the dates was 28. 4. 1987. On 28. 4. 1987, the advocates were not attending the courts as they had decided to abstain from work (strike ). The court looked into the matter and extended the stay till next date of hearing and fixed 5. 5. 1987 as the next date. On 5. 5. 1987, the plaintiff filed an application under order 39 rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as the defendants started raising construction from 28. 4. 1987. The trial court recorded evidence on this application and the plaintiff also produced some documents besides oral witnesses. The trial court, vide order dated 8. 9. 1989, directed the defendants to be put in civil prison for three months for violating the interim order passed by the trial court on 28. 4. 1987. The defendants took the matter in appeal and, Shri S. C. Shrotriya, Civil Judge, Tonk, vide order dated 31. 7. 1992, allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the defendants were not bound by the order of extending the stay passed on 28. 4. 1987. This is plaintiffs revision.
(2.) AFTER considering the matter, I am of the view that Civil Judge fell in grave error in saying that an order passed by the court extending stay on the date on which the lawyers are not attending the courts would not bind the parties. In this case, order of injunction was operating from 17. 2. 1987 and was extended from time to time. The defendants knew that stay order was operating upto 28. 4. 1987 and, even if, lawyers were not to attend the courts, the Judges were to hold their courts and were entitled to pass orders whether in presence or in absence of the parties in the interest of justice. The courts do not pass orders which are to be violated by the parties as has been so done in this case. The courts have to see that their orders are obeyed. In this case, it is strange that Civil Judge says that order of court extending the stay from 28. 4. 1987 till 5. 5. 1987 was not binding on the defendants. It is important to notice here that the interim order was ultimately confirmed by the trial court on 30. 7. 1987 and the defendants filed appeal against it, which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 29. 11. 1988. The parties and their counsel knew that the stay order was upto 28. 4. 1987 and, unless there was a sufficient reason for the court, in normal course, it may be continued. On these premises it became the duty of the defendants to find out as to what happened on 28. 4. 1987 even if lawyers were not attending the court and, if stay was extended, not to raise construction, but the defendants have raised construction despite the order extending the interim order. They must face the consequences. Since, Civil Judge, at the stage of first appeal, did not consider other facts of the case, I set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated 31. 7. 1992 and remit the case back to that court to decide the defendant's appeal afresh in accordance with law while keeping in view the observations made in this case. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the District Judge, Tonk on 3. 10. 1994. The District Judge may keep the file with him or send it to any other court, who is entitled to hear this appeal, but the appeal should be disposed of preferably during this year but certainly before 31. 3. 1995.
(3.) THE record be sent back to the District Judge, Tonk alongwith a copy of this order expeditiously so as to reach there before the next date of hearing. .;