Back
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Amlok Singh & Anr. -Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal -Resopndent
Case C. Rev. No. 122/2009, CMA Nos. 131/2009 and 15/2010
Decided On : 04-02-2013
Pathway - Specific Performance Act - Order-39 Rules-1 & 2, Section 151 CPC - [Order-39 Rules-1 & 2, Section 151 CPC] - The court granted Status-Quo Ante and directed the Revenue agency to demolish the construction raised by the defendants and to restore the pathway, based on the duty of all courts to see that their orders are implemented, the violation of court directions by the defendants, and the power of the court to pass interim directions in mandatory form.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Suit under Specific Performance Act for easementary rights and injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from blocking the pathway to his house. The trial court granted temporary injunction, but the defendants violated the court direction by raising construction, leading to the plaintiff's motion for restoration of the pathway.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants willfully violated the court direction and stopped the pathway of the plaintiff by raising construction, and that the impugned order was legal and required no interference.
Issues: Violation of court directions, power of the court to grant interim relief, and restoration of pathway.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's duty to ensure implementation of its orders, the power to pass interim directions in mandatory form, and the need to restore the position existing at the time of the interim direction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed along with connected CMA(s).
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized its duty to ensure the implementation of its orders and has the authority to pass interim directions in mandatory form to maintain the status quo and enforce court orders (!) (!) .
The case involved a dispute over a pathway to a residence, where the plaintiff filed a suit under the Specific Performance Act for easementary rights and an injunction to prevent the defendants from blocking the pathway (!) (!) .
The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction, but the defendants violated this order by raising construction, which obstructed the pathway, leading to a motion for restoration and the court's intervention (!) (!) .
The court examined reports indicating that the defendants willfully violated court directions by raising construction that blocked the pathway, which was the only access to the plaintiff’s house, and ordered the Revenue agency to demolish the unauthorized construction and restore the pathway to its previous state (!) (!) .
The court held that it has the legal authority to grant interim relief in the form of restoring the status quo ante, especially when there is evidence of violation of court orders and the need to prevent irreparable loss (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that effective orders must be passed to prevent breach of court directions and that individuals who violate such orders should be dealt with sternly (!) (!) (!) .
The court also confirmed its power to direct demolition of unauthorized constructions raised in violation of court orders, emphasizing the importance of compliance with judicial directives to uphold the rule of law (!) (!) .
The final decision dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the impugned order was legal and appropriate, and that the court's interim measures to restore the pathway and enforce compliance were justified (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of balancing convenience and inconvenience, ensuring that the rights of parties are protected while maintaining the integrity of court orders (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the court's wide powers to enforce its orders, including the authority to pass interim directions such as restoring the status quo and ordering demolition of unauthorized constructions, to uphold justice and the rule of law.
2. Brief facts;
Plain tiff/respondent namely Madan Lal resident of Mishriwala, Tehsil and District Jammu filed a Suit under Specific Performance Act for easementary rights and injunction on the ground that defendants (petitioners herein) be restained from blocking/encroaching upon the pathway of plaintiff/respondent which existed to his house and connected to the Main Road Mishriwala-Jhiri falling under Khasra Nos. 1196 and 1196/1 situated at Mishriwala Patwar Halqa Bhalwal, Tehsil & Distt. Jammu. Alongside the Suit, an application for temporary injunction was also made and the learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff, vide its order dated 22.11.2005, subject to objections from the other side, directed the defendants/petitioners not to block the pathway of the plaintiff.
It appears that defendant No. 2 appeared in person on 29-11-2005 and con#31;tested the suit. Thereafter despite service, she had chosen to remain absent and, accordingly, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against both of the defendants vide order 21.11.2006 and plaintiff was directed to lead evidence and interim direction granted was made absolute vide order dated 08-03-2007.
3. It is evident from the record that the defendants have not questioned the said order dated 08-03-2007 till today and has attained finality. However, defen-dant-2 had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings drawn in the main Suit. Ex-parte proceedings drawn against defendant No. 2 were set aside vide order dated 26.4.2007 by the learned trial Court.
4. Plain tiff/respondent herein laid a motion before the learned trial Court under Order-39 Rules-1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC with the allegations that the defendants have during the pendency of main Suit and in breach of order passed by the learned trial Court on 22-11-2005 read with order dated 08.03.2007 blocked the pathway of the plaintiff/respondent by raising construction.
5. The trial Court examined the report of the Naib-Tehsildar who has reported that the defendant-Amlok Singh have violated the Court direction and blocked the Pathway of the plaintiff/respondent which is the only approach/access to the plaintiff from his house to the main Road and plaintiff in order to approach the public road has to walk on the roof of the house(s) of neighbour and for doing so, he has to take the help of ladder. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 02-09-2009 granted Status-Quo Ante and directed the Revenue agency (Tehsildar) to demolish the construction raised by the defendants and to restore the pathway.
6. The moot question for consideration by this Court is as to whether the impugned order is legal or otherwise, and also whether the learned trial Court has powers to grant Status-Quo Ante by way of interim relief restoring the Pathway of the plaintiff as it existed on 22.11.2005. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons;
7. It is the duty of all the Courts to see that the orders passed by the Courts are implemented in letter and spirit and any person who commits breach or acts in violation of the Court orders is to be dealt with sternly and the position which was existing on the date of issuance of interim direction is to be restored.
8. In the instant case, admittedly the defendants/petitioners were restrained temporarily from blocking th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
