Prakashak Mohit Printers,Ghaziabad vs District Judge,Bulandshahr and Ashok Prakshan (Regd.) and Others

M. C. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

The facts are that a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondents 3 and 4 being suit No.672 of 1998 under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The trial Court decreed "he suit vide judgment dated 1111999. Thereafter, the execution application was filed by the respondents. The petitioner filed objections before the Court below which were dismissed by the executing Court by order dated 722000. The petitioner preferred a revision which was decided on 1342000. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the revisional Court whereby the punishments awarded to him has been reduced from three months simple imprisonment to that of 11/2 months simple imprisonment the petitioner allegedly committed breach of the judgment passed by the lower Court by infringing the copyright of the respondents 3 and 4 which ultimately resulted in the passing of punishment order by the executing Court and thereafter with modification by the revisional Court. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no copyright was infringed by the petitioner argument that he was not a party to the suit as such could not bound by the decree passed therein. In the alternative, it is contended that the punishment of 1 1/2 months awarded by the revisional Court is too harsh.

It appears that the matter came up before this Court in writ petition No. 11354 of 2000 which was decided on 1632000. The present is said to be repeated breach committed by the petitioner. In writ petition No. 11354 of 2000, the punishment of 30 days was reduced to 15 days by the revisional Court and seven days simple imprisonment by this Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and this aspect of the matter that it is for second time breach has been committed by the petitioner. I think it proper to reduce the imprisonment of the petitioner to 30 days instead of 1 1/2 months awarded by the revisional Court.

The writ petition is finally disposed of .upholding the order of the revisional Court, but the imprisonment awarded by the revisional Court for a period of 11/2 months is modified to that of 30 days.