Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7587 of 2018 Petitioner :- Meghpal Shrama Respondent :- Anil And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Suresh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner had instituted Original Suit No.1273 of 2011 in which an injunction order was passed on 19th January, 2012 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Alleging that there had been violation of the status-quo order by the defendant-opposite parties on various dates, by committing various acts, separate misc. applications under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC were filed, which were assigned separate misc. case nos., namely, misc. case no.30 of 2015; 62 of 2015 and Nil of 2016. All these misc. applications were clubbed together and dealt with together and a common order was passed on 25th July, 2017 by imposing equal punishment on the defendant-opposite parties in all three matters by directing that the defendant- opposite parties shall serve three months civil imprisonment in respect of each violation and also directing attachment of their property.
Aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2017, the defendant-opposite parties filed misc. appeal before the appellate court (Xth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar).
The appellate court without entering on the merits of the findings returned by the trial court, took a view that as separate violations of the interim injunction order was alleged and separate proceedings were drawn by moving separate applications, they ought not to have been dealt with by a common order as common violation of injunction order and by pronouncing equal sentence. Accordingly, the appellate court set aside the order passed by the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide each matter separately and individually.
The order passed by the appellate court has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on ground that since one interim injunction order was violated, the trial court dealt with such violation by a common order. He, accordingly submitted that the appellate court ought to have gone into the merits of the matter and thereafter could have passed an order imposing punishment separately because the appellate court is empowered to deal with all aspects. He has, accordingly, submitted that it was not proper for the appellate court to remit the matter back to the trial court to deal with each case separately.
There may be some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a common injunction order was violated therefore the trial court could have dealt with all the violations of the said order by a common order. More over, such consolidation of proceedings is permissible in view of Order IV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as inserted by U.P. Act No.57 of 1976, which enables consolidation of suits or proceedings. But whether this court should interfere with the order of remand is an issue which needs to be addressed in the context of the facts of the case. Here, in this case, there was a mere status-quo order operating in the suit. It was alleged that status-quo order was violated because a submersible pump/boring was installed, a tree was cut; and walls were plastered. Whether such activities would amount to violation of the status-quo order, if so, to what extent, and as to what punishment to be meted out had to be ascertained individually. Each violation cannot be meted out, with common punishment of three months civil imprisonment. The extent of punishment imposed would depend on the extent of violation, if any. Under the circumstances, in exercise of power conferred upon this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the remand order passed by the appellate court.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018. Rks.