CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 SHI CK 0012

Jameet Singh vs Raj Kumar

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surjit Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CMPMO No. 334 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 338 words

Surjit Singh, Judge

1.

Heard and gone through the record.

2.

Petitioner has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Hamirpur, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondent from raising construction on joint property. Order for maintaining status-quo was issued by the trial Court on an application, moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. During the currency of that order, respondent continued with the construction. Petitioner filed an application, under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Learned trial Court, after holding inquiry, concluded that respondent had continued with the construction, despite order for maintaining status-quo and, therefore, passed order for attachment of the property of respondent and also for keeping him in civil prison for three months. Appeal was filed against that order of the Trial court before the learned District Judge, who vide impugned order dated 6.5.2010, upheld the finding of the Trial Court that respondent continued with the construction despite order for maintaining status-quo, but partly set aside the order of the Trial Court, so far as it pertained to sending the respondent to civil prison.

3.

Reason given by the appellate Court is that the order of attachment having remained in force for a maximum period, prescribed in Rule2A of Order 39 CPC and the construction having come to an end, it was no longer desirable to uphold the order of keeping the respondent in civil prison. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. So, he has field the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4.

There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned District Judge. Under Rule 2A of Order 39 CPC, it is discretionary for the Court to send the contemnor to civil prison alongwith the order of attachment of his property. In the present case, the learned District Judge has given cogent reasons for setting aside the order of keeping the respondent, in prison. So, I see no scope for interfering with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.