IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 33 of 2007. Date of decision: 12.10.2007. Tarlochan Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus Keshri Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For Respondents 2 and 3 Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Fast Track Court dismissing the appeal filed them against the order of the learned Sub Judge (II), Dharamsala, ordering the detention of the petitioners in civil prison for one month and attachment of their property for disobeying the injunction order passed by that Court. The grievance of the respondents 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - herein was that by order dated 14.1.2000 at around 3 P.M., the petitioners alongwith some other persons trespassed in the suit land and removed crop worth Rs.8000/- from the suit land in disobedience to the injunction which had been issued by the Court. They pleaded that this was a blatant and flagrant violation of the orders of learned trial Court and the petitioners deserved to be punished in accordance with law. Parties were put to trial on the issue as to whether there was intentional or willful disobedience of the order passed by the trial Court. By its judgment dated 4.3.2003, learned trial Court found in favour of the respondents and directed that the property of the petitioners be attached and ordered their detention in civil prison for one month for deliberately disobeying the orders of Court. An appeal preferred to the learned Additional District Judge was dismissed. Learned appellate Court noticed that petitioners herein (respondents before the learned trial Court) did not produce any evidence nor appeared as witnesses in support of their case. Considering the material on record, learned appellate Court affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. - 3 - The petitioners have challenged this order in this Court on a number of grounds. I am satisfied from the material on record that the order which has been passed by learned Courts below is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. During the course of proceedings, an undertaking has been filed by petitioner No. 1 that he will not interfere in the suit land and will dutifully comply and obey the orders passed by the trial Court till it is set aside or varied. It was explained to the petitioner No. 1 that in case of violation of this order, he would be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act which fact has been accepted by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter need not be pursued any further. The detention of the petitioners in the civil prison and the attachment of their land are, therefore, set aside. The undertaking filed by the petitioners is accepted. In case of disobedience of the injunction order, the petitioners will be proceeded against for contempt of this Court. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications shall also - 4 - stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. October 12, 2007 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.