The High Court, through a writ petitioner challenging a civil imprisonment order passed over twenty years ago for violating an interim order, found no justifiable ground to interfere and dismissed the petition, holding the order must be implemented.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:39041
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000192 of 2003 Petitioner :- Badkaunu Respondent :- Additional District Judge Vth Hardoi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Instant writ petition is arising out of misc. application (paper no. 3-Ka) under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 before the first appellate court (respondent no. 1).
Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that Badkaunu (petitioner) has filed a suit, being O.S. No. 324 of 1990. The trial court, vide order dated 13.09.1990, has decided the interim injunction application (paper no. 7C) under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. Having been aggrieved,, Kamlesh (defendant/respondent no. 2) has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 53 of 1990 against the order passed by the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, interim order dated 22.11.1990 was passed to maintain the status quo on spot. At later stage, defendant-respondent no. 2 Kamlesh has moved a misc. application (paper no. 3-Ka) under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. with the allegation that the plaintiff-petitioner has willfully disobeyed the interim order dated 22.11.1990 passed by the appellate Court. Considering the merit of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C., learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Hardoi has passed order dated 30.11.2002 directing civil imprisonment to the plaintiff for seven days.
There is nothing on the record to show that any interim order is granted by this Court in favour of petitioner staying the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 30.11.2022.
In view of the above, the order dated 30.11.2002, by which the petitioner has been directed to be detained in civil prison for the period of seven days, must have been implemented. At this juncture, after about more than twenty years from the order impugned dated 30.11.2002, I did not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the order impugned.
As such, instant writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2023/Pkb/
Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in an order for civil imprisonment passed more than twenty years ago.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Badkaunu
Additional District Judge Vth Hardoi
Kamlesh
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
