ORDER :

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside order dated 02.04.2016 passed in E.P.No.54 of 2006 in O.S.No.83 of 2005 by the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris and consequently, to dismiss the execution petition as not maintainable.

2. The Petitioner/ Contemnor herein is a third party. First respondent is the plaintiff and the Second respondent is the defendant.

3. The 1st respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2005 before the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam against the 2nd respondent for grant of decree for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.04.2005. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.54 of 2006 against the petitioner under Or.21 R.32 CPC for disobeying the decree of the court. The petitioner is none other than the son of the 2nd respondent/defendant. Though the petitioner was not a party to the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the Execution Petition against him by stating that the petitioner being the family member of the plaintiff, is bound by the decree. The said petition was resisted by the petitioner by stating that he is not a party to suit and the Execution Petition is not maintainable. The Executing Court arrived at a finding that the decree of Permanent Injunction has been obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant and her family members and hence it will bind the petitioner and that he has to be arrested and sent to civil prison for disobeying the decree. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard. No representation for the respondents.

5. Mr.R.Aranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent/plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree in the suit which was filed in a collusive manner by the first respondent joining with the 2nd respondent/defendant. The defendant wantonly remained ex parte and allowed the Court to pass the ex parte decree. According to the petitioner, the suit property is a joint family property and a partition suit was filed in O.S.No.200 of 1998 by the 1st respondent's paternal aunt, one Smt.Seetha Ranganathan and in which a preliminary decree was passed on 20.03.2003; thereafter, the petitioner and other co-parceners took possession of the suit property and from the year 2004 onwards, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same; while so, the 1st respondent/plaintiff without the knowledge of this petitioner colluded with the 2nd respondent and filed the suit without impleading all the necessary parties.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the decree cannot be executed against those persons who were not parties to the suit and hence the order of arrest made against the petitioner cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his contentions he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in "(1992) 2 SCC 504 (Yashpal Singh versus VII Addl.District Judge and others)", wherein, it is held as under:

"1. The provision of Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C is applicable to a party against whom a decree for injunction had been passed, [p.186A-B]

2. The word 'party' occurring in Order 21 Rule 32(1), C.P.C. cannot be construed so liberally as to include each and every employee of the State to have been a party to the suit in which the injunction was passed

3. The intention manifested in the provision seems to confine the rigor to the party who had contested the suit and had suffered the decree and it is that party when obstructing is liable of being detained in the civil prison, or suffer attachment of his property, or both.

3.1. Although the Forest Department of the State of U.P. and the State of U.P were parties, and, being an employee of the State of U.P., the appellant was in an indirect way bound by the injunction, yet