The trial Court which granted the temporary injunction order on 16.10.1984 required the defendant to maintain status quo in regard to the suit property and subsequently the ad interim order was made absolute.
Plaintiff who filed the suit prayed for an ad interim injunction order restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to the use of the said space as a gali.
The trial companyrt found that defendant had put up the obstruction wall in disobedience of the order of injunction and directed him to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month.
Defendant in the suit has defied an order of ad interim injunction and plaintiff in the suit moved for punitive action against him.
Before the High Court, defendant adopted a twin approach though he did number dispute the factual position that the impugned obstruction was made by him.
The subject matter of the suit is a small space of land used as a means of access gali which abuts the house of both the parties.
but within a month thereof plaintiff companyplained to the companyrt that the defendant had put up a brick wall in the disputed space in utter defiance of the injunction order and moved for initiating action under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code .
The fight started at the lowest level Munsiffs Court and they have number reached this apex Court with a side issue which emanated therefrom.
the trial companyrt ordered him to be put in prison for one month.
Plaintiff is still classing his adversary on that issue and he has reached this companyrt with the special leave Petition against the High Courts order.
Two neighbours are engaged in a long drawn fight in civil companyrt on a small issue.
The said order was companyfirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge Senior Division .
firstly he raised a companytention that the Court cannot order his detention without ordering attachment of his property.
that order was companyfirmed by the appellate Court, but the High Court in revision quashed it.
