ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 20/11/1984 passed by Munsif, Phalodi, whereby, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC filed by the respondents herein has been allowed and the petitioners Shri Gopal and Hanuman have been sentenced to one month's civil imprisonment and dated 21/2/1993 passed by Addl. District Judge, Phalodi, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 20/11/1984 has been rejected.
(2.) A suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was filed by Heeralal pertaining to the land situated at Dholabala against defendant Shri Gopal and his son Hanuman; along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction against the defendants from raising construction at the disputed site. On 22/1/1980 Commissioner was appointed ex-parte directing him to visit the site and produce the report by 23/1/1980 while issuing notice to the defendants; on 23/1/1980 the Commissioner produced his report, which was taken on record. On 24/1/1980 on behalf of the defendant Shri Gopal one D.D.Changgani produced authority letter and undertook that status quo would be maintained and no new construction would be raised and, therefore, time was granted for filing reply. Whereafter, ultimately by order dated 28/8/1980 the application under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed and the defendants were directed not to raise construction at the disputed site and not to make any change in the construction already raised.
(3.) On 24/5/1980, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC (though indicated as Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) CPC) was filed by the plaintiff inter alia indicating that undertaking was given on behalf of the defendants that they would maintain status quo and would not make any changes. Whereafter, on the southern side of the house slabs have been placed, construction of a room, which was incomplete, has been completed and doors have been put, flooring has been completed in another room and flour mill has been installed and cement tank has already been constructed, which amounts to violation of the injunction and, therefore, action be taken against the defendants. Another application in the same proceedings was filed on 9/7/1980, further elaborating the averments already made. On 18/7/1980, an application was filed for appointment of Commissioner, which application was allowed and Commissioner was appointed for giving the report. A reply to the application was filed by the appellants inter alia denying the averments made in the application, it was denied that no new construction has been raised, no further work has been undertaken and, therefore, the application be rejected. In support of the application, three witnesses were examined and on behalf of the non-applicants four witnesses were examined.;