The petitioner allowed the order, dated 25.11.2015, in I.A.No.1457 of 2015, to become final. In the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.289 of 2016, he raised a vague plea that after receiving the original documents, he has alienated the suit schedule property and handed over the original documents to the purchasers. The said plea is bereft of material details, such as, the dates on which the sale deed was executed and registered and the names and details of the purchasers. When a judicial order was passed by a competent Court, it is the bounden duty of the party who suffered the order to comply with the same. Under Section 32 CPC, the Court may compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under Section 30 CPC and for that purpose may inter alia issue a warrant for his arrest. Due to the default on the part of the petitioner in producing the original documents, despite the order passed in I.A.No.1457 of 2015, the lower Court has exercised its power vested in it under Section 32(a) of CPC. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error on the part of the Court below in passing the order under revision.
