Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXXIX,9(3)

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: I,12,42,54

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXIX, R. 2(3) & S. 151---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 12 & 54--Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Injunction order, violation of---Sealing order passed on report of bailiff---Proceedings in application under O. XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C.---Powers of the Court---Scope---Plaintiff, while claiming to be the owner of suit-property pursuant to sale deed/mutation, alleged that the defendants had dispossessed him from the suit-property---Trial Court granted ad-interim injunction directing the defendants to maintain status quo; which injunctive order was later confirmed---Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under O.XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., alleging that in violation of the injunctive order, the defendants were raising construction over the suit -property; the Trial Court, in view of spot inspection report by Court's bailiff, while allowing the said application, directed for the suit property to be sealed ('the sealing order')--Defendants filed revision petition as their assailing the said sealing order but to no avail---Question was whether the Civil Court, while deciding the application under O.XXXIX, R.2(3), C.P.C., was competent to have passed the order for sealing the suit property---Contention of the petitioners / defendants was that sealing of the suit property was without jurisdiction as while deciding the application under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., the Trial Court had to either punish the alleged contemnors or acquit them---Validity---Petitioners / defendants had not denied that the ad-interim injunctive order was in the favour of respondent / plaintiff--Admittedly, the said injunctive relief was confirmed after an inter-partes hearing--Vide the said injunction, the petitioners / defendants were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property---In his application under O.XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C., the respondent / plaintiff had alleged that despite the temporary injunction in the field, the petitioners / defendants, in violation of the said injunction, were raising construction over the suit property---Vide the sealing order, the…