1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.135/2005 {Radhey Shyam Versus Bhanwar Lal Another} Date of Order :: 8th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.K. Jain for the petitioner Mr. Shyam Sharma for the respondent no.1 BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent no.1 – Bhanwar Lal was found guilty by the trial court vide order dated 24th March, 1998 for disobedience of the order passed by the trial court under Order 39 Rule 2 A readwith Section 151 CPC. The trial court awarded one month's civil imprisonment to respondent no.1. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by respondent no.1 – Bhanwar Lal. The first appellate court vide order dated 27th July, 2005 partly allowed the appeal. The order of civil jail was set-aside and an order of admonition was passed against him. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff – petitioner preferred this revision petition with the prayer that the order passed 2 by the first appellate court be set-aside and order of civil imprisonment awarded by the trial court be restored. 4. During the pendency of this revision petition this Court directed the respondent no.1 to remain present in person. He was present on 5th March, 2008 and prayed for time to demolish the disputed wall which was constructed by him in violation of injunction order passed by the court below. This court vide order dated 1st April, 2008 observed that despite the order dated 23rd October, 2007 the wall in dispute has not been demolished, therefore, directed the trial court to get the disputed wall demolished in the light of the order passed by this Court dated 23rd October, 2007. The trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taleda, District Bundi vide its letter dated 12th May,2008 has informed this Court that the disputed wall has been got demolished in presence of police on 9th May, 2008. T 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the disputed wall has been demolished but still the respondent no.1 should be punished by way of imposing fine looking to the facts and circumstances of the 3 case and findings of both the courts below. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below about disobedience of the order by the respondent no.1. However, now the disputed wall has already been demolished as per report of trial court. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to award any punishment of civil imprisonment on the respondent no.1. Consequently the revision petition is disposed of with no oder as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK