IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.4961 OF 2011 1. MOST.VEENA DEVI W/O UMA SHANKASR HALWAI 2. PINTU KUMAR GUPTA @ PINTU KUMAR 3. CHINTU KUMAR GUPTA @ CHINTU KUMAR 4. TINKU KUMAR GUPTA @ TINKU KUMAR 5. MUTU KUMAR GUPTA @ MUNTU KUMAR ALL SONS OF UMA SHANKAR HALWAI 6. RUBI KUMARI 7. PINKI KUMARI 8. SWATY KUMARI 9. SHILPY KUMARI, MONOR THROUGH VEENA DEVI MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, ALL DAUGHTERS OF UMA SHANKAR HALWAI 10. GANESH HALWAI 11. LALJJE HALWAI, BOTH SONS OF LATE MANKI HALWAI ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NALBAND JOLI BUXAR, POLICE STATION BUXAR, BUXAR. VERSUS MOTILAL SONAR S/O LATE GOPAL SONAR, NALBAND JOLI BUXAR, BUXAR. ---------------------------------- 4 08.11.2011. Heard Mr Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr S.S.Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel on behalf of the respondent. Petitioners who were defendants in the court below has prayed for quashing judgment dated 31.1.2011, passed by the District judge, Buxar in Misc appeal no. 14 of 2010 dismissing petitioner’s Misc appeal and confirming order dated 25.9.2010, passed in Misc. case no. 21 of 2009, by Sub judge (Civil judge, Senior Division, III), whereby the petitioners were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and to hand over the possession of the shop in question to the respondents. The respondent filed Title suit no. 5 of 2005 2 against the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- (a) That the decree of part performance of sale in terms of agreement dated 4.2.1994 executed by defendant no.1 Uma Shankar Halwai (deceased) may be passed in favour of plaintiff against defendant no.1 with direction to defendants no.2 and 3 to join hand in the deed as Co-executants for satisfaction of the plaintiff. In the meantime, the possession of plaintiff over the suit house as prospective purchaser may be confirmed and the defendants may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit house. (b) That a decree of damage by way of interest over Rs. 1,21,000/- 18% per annum as prevalent in business circulars may be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants pendente lite till realization and execution of sale deed. (c) That the defendants ma be directed to refund Rs. 45,000/- the security money the deposit with defendants may be passed failing which the decree may be passed with interest @ 18% per annum pendente lite till realization. (d) That a further decree of Rs.7000/- ma be passed against defendant no.3 Laljee Halwai with interest @ 18% per annum for the amount taken by him pendente lite. Respondents filed a petition of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises and from alienating the property. The injunction petition was allowed on 8.10.1996 and the trial court directed the defendants to maintain status quo. The plaintiff respondent alleged that in 3 spite of knowledge of status quo dated 8.10.1996, the petitioners entered into suit premises on 9.10. 2009 and broke the glass and walls of the shop and threw out all the goods including the fruits and put a lock on the premises. The plaintiff as such filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for punishing the defendants petitioners for willfully disobeying the interim order passed by the trial court. The application was numbered as Misc case no. 21 of 2009. The trial court appointed Advocate commissioner to make inspection and submit a report in the matter. After inspection and due enquiry, Sri Surender Tiwari, advocate, submitted his report on 4.11.2009 affirming the allegations made by the plaintiff. However, the trial court observed that all these matters including one under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure would be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. The respondents being aggrieved filed C.W.J.C.No. 3086/2010. The Learned Single judge vide order dated 22.1.2010 set aside the order of the trial court and directed the trial court to determine the question of violation of injunction, pending disposal of the suit. In view of the order of this Court, the trial court 4 proceeded to decide Misc case 21 of 2009 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A read with section 151 the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court vide order dated 25.9.2010 came to a finding that the petitioners have violated the interim injunction on 8.10.1996. The trial court imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and further directed the Superintendent of police of the district to ensure restoration of the possession of the plaintiff. Petitioners being aggrieved, filed Misc case no. 14 of 2010, which was too dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2011. The respondent filed a petition for a direction to the respondents to ensure the compliance order dated 25.9.2010, passed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of petitioners is that the shop was earlier given on rent and subsequently a Mahadnama was executed on certain terms and conditions. The petitioners alleged that respondents in the meantime tried to make unauthorized construction in the suit shop. The matter was reported to the police who locked the premises and took the key. Petitioners submit that they were not aware of the order of the injunction passed by the trial court. Petitioners 5 submit that the appellate court without considering their case erred in holding that they have deliberately violated the interim order of injunction and thus liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. The writ petition was heard on 15.7.2011, on which date this Court directed the petitioners to pay the fine of Rs. 5000/- by 21.7.2011. It was further observed that in the meantime status quo would be maintained. Respondents appeared in the case, which was heard at length on 14.10.2011. The petitioners stated that they have already deposited Rs. 2,500/- against penalty. The petitioners state that in deference to the order of this Court, they wanted to deposit Rs. 5000/- as well, but the trial court did not accept the same as the order was not received in the trial court. It appears that both the trial court and the appellate court came to a finding that the defendants deliberately violated interim order restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of plaintiff from the suit premises. Both the trial courts held that despite order of injunction, the defendants entered into the premises and threw the goods and fruits stored in the shop of plaintiff. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 6 227 of the Constitution of Indian is only supervisory in nature and unless the finding is perverse, or based on no materials, the courts would not normally interfere. The courts under Article 227 of the Constitution would not appraise the evidence as if sitting in appeal. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment in case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases, 675. Thus I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate court affirming order of the trial court. As the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards the fine amount, they would be required to deposit only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in the trial court. If any excess amount beyond Rs. 5,000/- has been deposited, the same would be returned to the petitioners. As directed by both the courts, the police will restore the possession of the plaintiff, in whose favour an order of injunction is continuing since 1996. Trial court would proceed with the suit expeditiously. The writ petition is dismissed. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)