These two revision petitions have been filed by defendants 1 and 2 respectively in O.S.No.160/2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode-II. The said suit filed by the respondent, Kathalat Ravi was one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint A and B schedule properties and from altering their present condition and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1101/2002 for a temporary injunction on the lines of the perpetual injunction prayed for in the suit. An ad interim order of injunction was granted by the trial court which, after hearing both sides, made the order absolute. Subsequently the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1295/2002 under Order XXXIX rule 2A C.P.C. read with sec.151 C.P.C. alleging that the order of injunction was violated by the defendants. Even though the said application was opposed by the revision petitioners on various grounds, overruling their objections the trial court as per order dt.19.1.2005 allowed the said application directing as follows:-

(a) Defendants 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to the plaintiff towards damages caused owing to the violation of the injunction order passed by the court.

(b) Defendants 1 and 2 are directed to restore the pathway into its original width of 1.8 metres and restore portions of the plaint A and B schedule properties which were utilized for road formation. This shall be done within three weeks from the date of the order and at the expense of the defendants.

(c) If the defendants failed to pay the damages or to restore the pathway as aforesaid, they shall be detained in civil prison for a period of 15 days and the plaintiff shall be entitled to restore the plaint A and B Schedule properties to their original condition at his expense to be realized from the defendants together with the damages as ordered, by resort to attachment and sale of properties, if any, of the defendants.

2. Even though defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal as C.M.A.NO.15/2005 before the District Court, Kozhikode, the same was dismissed as per judgment dt. 16.3.2005. Hence these revisions.

3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Assailing the orders passed by the courts below, Adv. Sri Kunhikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant Panchayath made the following submissions before me:-

The 1st defendant in the suit is Cheruvannoor Nallalam Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary. In I.A.No.1295/2002 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with sec. 151 C.P.C also, it is the same Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary which was the first counter petitioner. Without naming the person who was the Secretary, it was not permissible for the plaintiff to seek his imprisonment in civil prison for the alleged violation of the interim order of injunction. Court cannot imprison a person who is not identified in the order. A nameless person cannot be incarcerated (see Union of India v. Satish Chandra Sharma -1980 (2) SCC 144). It will be disastrous to send the Secretary, whoever he is, to civil prison for the alleged disobedience of an order of the court if he was not the Secretary at the time of the alleged disobedience. The commissioner, examined as PW.1, had not seen the Secretary of the Panchayath during his inspection at the time of the alleged violation. The plaintiff, examined as PW.3, also did not see the Secretary at the scene. Even the trial court has observed in paragraph 12 of its order that the witnesses for the plaintiff could identify only the Assistant Executive Engineer of the 1st defendant Panchayath besides the 2nd defendant at the scene. The trial court has observed that the 2nd defendant alone was present with the officials of the 1st defendant Panchayath. Even if the said observation is accepted, mere presence by itself may not be