Procedural fairness is essential in enforcing injunction orders; violations must be proven with clear evidence after allowing defendants to present their defense.

1. Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for injunction. Respondents are the plaintiffs. The above defendants have filed this original petition challenging Ext. P12 common judgment passed by the learned District Judge in two appeals, by which, he affirmed Ext. P11 common order passed by the Munsiff allowing two applications of plaintiffs, one for interim mandatory injunction and the other for prosecution of defendants for violation of the interim injunction ordered against them in the suit.

2. Ext. P1 is copy of the plaint which describes two schedules, 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule. The former is stated to be a property in possession of the plaintiffs and the latter a road having a width of four metres allegedly used for ingress and egress to 'A' schedule and also to a Church. Plaintiffs laid the suit alleging that attempts are being made by defendants to interfere with their enjoyment over 'B' schedule putting up concrete posts in that road. An ex parte order of interim injunction applied by plaintiffs was granted in their favour restraining the defendants from doing any act causing obstruction to the enjoyment of that road by plaintiffs. An Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court after conducting local inspection filed Ext. P5 report. That was an ex parte commission. After passing of the order of interim injunction, violating that order defendants dug some ditches and also put up concrete posts in 'B' schedule road, was the case of plaintiffs to file two applications, one for prosecution of the defendants and the other for an interim mandatory injunction to restore the status quo ante over 'B' schedule road. Ext. P6 is the application moved under O.39 R.2A of the Code of Civil Procedure , for short, the 'Code', to prosecute the defendants, and Ext. P7, the application for interim mandatory injunction. The defendants, the first among whom is a statutory authority, and the other two, its officers, resisted the petitions contending that the road described as 'B' schedule belong to the 1st defendant, and, whatever acts done were within the adjoining property belonging to the 1st defendant, but close to 'B' schedule, and that too in the presence of police officials, whose assistance had been secured to do such acts. Plaintiffs after removing some concrete posts from the property of defendants filed the suit suppressing material facts and their intention is to carve out a motorable way annexing more portions from property of defendants, according to them. They had only replaced the dismantled posts at the spot where such posts existed earlier, which had been removed by plaintiffs committing mischief, was the case of defendants resisting the applications for interim mandatory injunction and also their prosecution alleging violation of injunction order.

3. Advocate Commissioner, who had conducted local inspection earlier and filed Ext. P5 report, was deputed by the Court again, and, he filed Ext. P10 report. The report disclosed that after his first inspection, some ditches had been dug and also concrete posts were put up in 'B' schedule road. Learned Munsiff, after considering Exts. P6 and P7 petitions, with reference to the objections filed, and also materials placed, passed Ext. P11 common order directing the defendants to restore 'B' schedule road to its previous condition removing the concrete posts and filling up the ditches within a period of one month, and in default of compliance, plaintiffs were allowed to restore that road to its original position with further order, in that event, for detention of Executive Engineer, who filed objections to the petitions, for one month and for attachment of his property. Appeals preferred by defendants against