(2017) 3 LawHerald 2031

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

SINGLE BENCH

HARI SINGH — Appellant

Vs.

TARLOCHAN SINGH BEDI — Respondent

( Before : Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. )

Civil Revision No.2196 of 2017 (O&M)

Decided on : 27-03-2017

  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 32
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.32–Civil ImprisonmentDisobedience of InjunctionInjunction granted in favour of respondentTaking advantage of illness of the respondent/decree holder, petitioners forcibly occupied his propertyOrder directing them to be detained in civil prison for one month upheld.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. G.S. Sirphirkhi, Advocate, for the Petitioners

JUDGMENT

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision is directed against the order dated 02.02.2017, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Batala, whereby application under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent/decree holder has been allowed and petitioners were held guilty of disobedience of the court orders and thus, they were directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month.

  1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. He submits that no such violation has been committed by the petitioners. They were in possession of the property even prior to filing of the suit.
  2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
  3. It appears, Tarlochan Singh Bedi, respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering in his possession over the suit land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas, situated at Village Pakhoke, Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. Said suit was decreed on 3.11.2011. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur on 11.10.2013. Respondent/decree holder filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC on the ground that he remained admitted in Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar from 16.5.2014 to 22.5.2014 and in his absence, petitioners/JDs in utter violation of the judgment and decree, broke open the lock of room of the decree holder in Khasra No.41R/14 and occupied the same illegally and forcibly. The trial court allowed the application holding the petitioners guilty of disobedience and ordered that they be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. I find no legal infirmity with the order. A perusal of impugned order shows that taking advantage of illness of the respondent/decree holder, petitioners forcibly occupied his property. Thus, the court below rightly held them guilty in this regard. I find no illegality in the order passed. The revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.