Civil imprisonment for contempt requires clear evidence of wilful disobedience and adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly regarding individual liberty.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.09.2024 passed in E P No.841 of 2024 in O.S No.279 of 2022 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, Kurnool.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, originally, the suit in O.S No.279 of 2022 has been filed by the plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein against the defendants/petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 herein before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone (for short “the trial Court”) seeking for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents and friends etc.., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands. Summons were served on the defendants. Service was held sufficient and defendants No.1 and 3 were called absent and defendants No.2 did not choose to file written statement before the trial Court within statutory period and as such the defendants were made set ex parte. The said suitwas decreed as prayed for with costs vide judgment dated 26.7.2023. Later, on 23.01.2023 the J.Dr No.1 and 3 i.e., petitioner/J.Dr.No.1 and respondent No.3/J.Dr.No.3, without any right, have entered into plaint schedule and used to go in middle of the E P Schedule land to his land in Sy No.997 as if they have Rasta. The J.Dr No.1 and 2 and others P.Venkata eddy and Y. Thirupam Reddy attacked the 1st respondent and his wife and daughter. Basing on the said attack, the D.Hr/1st respondent along with his wife gave oral complaint before the police but they did not take any action as it is a civil dispute. It is stated that, knowing very well about the judgment of learned Principal Civil Judge, the J.Drs No1 and 3 disobeyed the decree and intentionally bet the D.Hr and his family. Therefore, they filed E P No.81 of 2024 in O.S No.279 of 2022 before the trial Court. After hearing the both parties, the trial Court has allowed the E.P vide order dated 09.9.2024 and sentenced J.Drs No.1 and 3 to civil prison for a period of one month. Thereafter, the case was suomoto advanced from 23.9.2024 to 20.09.2024. On 20.09.2024, J.Dr No.1 was produced on execution of warrant and D.Hr submitted that he is ready to pay subsistence allowance for sending the J.Dr No.1 to civil prison and in view of order dated 09.09.2024 J.Dr to be present to civil prison for a period of one month on payment of subsistence allowance by D.Hr. Aggrieved by the same, the J.Dr.No.1/petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

3. This Court, vide order, dated 01.10.2024, has suspended the order, dated 20.09.2024 passed in EP No.81 of 2024 in O.S No.279 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, Kurnool and also directed the concerned to release the petitioner/J.Dr.No.1 from the civil prison pending disposal of the civil revision petition.

4. Heard Ms. Ayesha Azma.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ganta Ediga Rakesh Goud, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts on record in the case and the same is unjust and unsustainable. She submits that the reliance placed by the trial Court is erroneous and is vitiated by improper appreciation of evidence on record and position of law concerning the facts fo the acse and the contentions raised by the petitioner therein and the order is against the fundamental principle of administration of justice. She further submits that the trial Court ought to have pondered upon the aspect that, whereby the liberty of an individual is involved, it is incumbent on the part of the Executing Court.

She submits that the trial Court lexically erroneous on the basis that, the Executing court cannot imprison the J.Dr merely because there is some unchallenged evidence on record without there being any divulgence of wilfull disobedience. She further submits that the trial Court ought to have harped on modalities and requireme