IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.334 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 8, 2011 Jameet Singh son of Bhagat Ram, resident of Village Hayor, Mouza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP. ..Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar son of Sh. Dila Ram, resident of Village Hayor, Mouza Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. ..Respondent Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/quashing the order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned District Judge Hamirpur in CMA 2 of 2008 in civil suit No.56-2006 titled as Jamit Singh Versus Sh. Raj Kumar whereby learned District Judge below has allowed the application for the petitioner under order 43 rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Jamalta, Advocate. __________________________________________ Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Hamirpur, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondent from raising construction on joint property. Order for maintaining status-quo was issued by the trial Court on an application, moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. During the currency of that order, respondent continued with the construction. Petitioner filed an application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Learned trial Court, after holding inquiry, concluded that respondent had continued with the construction, despite order for maintaining status-quo and, therefore, passed order for attachment of the property of respondent and also for keeping him in civil prison for three months. Appeal was filed against that order of the Trial court before the learned District Judge, who vide impugned order dated 6.5.2010, upheld the finding of the Trial Court that respondent continued with the construction despite order for maintaining status-quo, but partly set aside the order of the Trial Court, so far as it pertained to sending the respondent to civil prison. 3. Reason given by the appellate Court is that the order of attachment having remained in force for a maximum period, prescribed in Rule-2A of Order 39 CPC É3É and the construction having come to an end, it was no longer desirable to uphold the order of keeping the respondent in civil prison. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. So, he has field the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned District Judge. Under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC, it is discretionary for the Court to send the contemnor to civil prison alongwith the order of attachment of his property. In the present case, the learned District Judge has given cogent reasons for setting aside the order of keeping the respondent, in prison. So, I see no scope for interfering with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. December 8, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.