Samadhan Trambak Bhople vs Gajanan Ramdas Jadhav
2016 Latest Caselaw 7140 Bom

                  cra30.16.odt                                                                                             1/3


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                       
                                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                         CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2016




                                                                                       
                   REVISIONIST:                                            Samadhan Trambak Bhopale, Aged -
                                                                           39 years, Occ - Driver, R/o Kolwad,
                   (Ori. J.D.No.1)
                                                                           Tq. And Dist. Buldhana.
                   On R A




                                                                                      
                                                                         
                                                           
                                                                    -VERSUS-




                                                                          
                   RESPONDENTS:                                             Gajanan   Ramdas   Jadhav,   Aged
                                                                            about - 39 years, Agriculturist, R/o
                   (Ori. J. D. No.1)  ig                                    Kolwad, Tq. And Dist. Buldhana.
                   On R. A.
                                                                                                                                          
                                    
                  Shri A. J. Kadu, Advocate for the applicant.
                  Shri N. B. kalwaghe, Advocate for the respondent. 
      


                                                                             CORAM:     S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 13 DECEMBER, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard finally by consent.

2. This Civil Revision Application challenges the legality and

correctness of the order dated 31-3-2016 whereby an application filed

for enforcement of a decree of injunction against the revisionist, one of

the defendants, filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was allowed by the executing Court. By this order, the

executing Court sent the judgment debtors, the revisionist being one

cra30.16.odt 2/3

of them, to civil imprisonment of one month.

3. The application filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code

narrated the events post the order of injunction dated 29-6-2013 which

in the opinion of the Decree Holder/respondent in the present

application amounted to willful breach of the order of injunction. This

event was of the date 24-7-2013 when, according to the decree holder,

this revisionist intentionally entered the field of the decree holder, and

threatened to remove his standing crops. In the impugned order,

however, there is not a single whisper about the incident dated 24-7-

2013 which in fact, was the reason for moving of an application by the

respondent under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. The

learned Civil Judge rather considered an incident which occurred on

10-10-2012 in respect of which the decree holder had filed the police

complaint. The learned Civil Judge found that on 10-10-2012, the

judgment debtor by entering the suit property had restrained the decree

holder from enjoying it in accordance with law and this amounted to

disobeying the decree as well as obstructing the peaceful possession of

the decree holder in respect of the suit property. One does not

understand as to how the incident occurring before passing of the decree

on 29-6-2013 could be taken as disobedience of the decree warranting

civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor. The order impugned in this

revision application is patently perverse. It cannot be sustained in the

eyes of law. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The

revision application is allowed accordingly.

cra30.16.odt 3/3

4. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Regular

Darkhast No.306/2013 stands rejected.

5. Civil Revision Application No.30 of 2016 is allowed

accordingly.

6. Costs to follow the events.

7. Liberty, however, is granted to the decree holder to pursue

remedy on the basis of fresh cause of action, if any, in accordance with

law.

JUDGE

//MULEY//