Bal Ram vs Rajinder Kumar

S.K. Mahajan, J.

Admit.

The matter has been heard with the consent of the parties and is being disposed of finally.

plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction and by order dated 6.8.1999, the Trial Court passed an order of injunction in favor of the plaintiff. I am informed that an appeal is pending against this order. plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2(A), CPC for initiating proceedings against the defendant for his having allegedly committed contempt of the Court by violating the order of injunction. When this application was pending the respondent filed an application u/s 151, CPC for permission to the defendant to carry out certain repairs on the structure existing on the suit land. On this application being filed, the plaintiff also filed an application u/s 151, CPC contending inter alias that till such time the respondent purged himself of the contempt he cannot be heard on his application u/s 151, CPC. By the impugned order, the Court after hearing the parties held that all these applications will be heard together and thereafter such applications which are covered by the principles of law laid down by the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the parties will be disposed of. The matter was, Therefore, adjourned to 7.7.2000 for arguments on these applications. Being aggrieved by this order the present revision petition was filed.

it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that till such time the respondent purges himself of the contempt committed by him, the respondent's application u/s 151 cannot be heard by the Court and the Trial Court, Therefore, erred in fixing all the three applications for arguments on 17.7.2000.

By the impugned order what the Court has stated is that after hearing the parties on the application the Court will proceed to hear arguments on the applications which are covered by the principles of law laid down in the judgments cited by the Counsel for the parties at the Bar. I do not see any irregularity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. After hearing arguments the Court may come to a finding that it is only the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2(A), CPC which has to be heard. The Court after hearing arguments may also hold that prima facie there was no violation of the order of injunction and the Court may thereafter proceed to hear arguments on other applications as well. The petitioner by way of the present petition is trying to prevent the Trial Court from hearing arguments on the application on the presumption that the respondent has been held guilty of contempt. In my view, thee is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and this Court will not like to interfere with the same. The petition, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.