At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O.P. GARG
For the Appearing Parties: B. Dayal, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.
O.P. GARG, J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B. Dayal, appear ing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit No. 672 of 1998 under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. in a representative capacity. In that suit the petitioner was not the party. The said suit was decreed on 11-1- 1999. Against the said order an appeal was preferred which was dismissed on 12-5-1999 and the decree became final. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 moved an applica tion under Order 21, Rule 32, C. P. C. which was registered as Execution Case No. 28 of 1999 against the petitioner. It was urged that the petitioner has violated the decree passed in Suit No. 672 of 1998 for which he may be punished. The petitioner filed an objection in the execution proceedings. His objection was rejected on 11-2-2000. Against the said order the petitioner preferred revision application No. 54 of 2000. The revision has been partly allowed inasmuch as the punishment of imprison ment of three months passed by executing Court was
reduced to 1-112 months. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently ar gued that the petitioner was not a party in Suit No. 672 of 1998 and therefore he was not bound by a decree passed in that Suit. Sri B. Dayal maintains that the decree passed in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in a representative capacity is binding on all including those who are not party to the suit. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions of this Court passed in W. P. No. 2657 of 2000, Prakashak Gurdev Computers v. State of U. P. , decided on 19-1-2000 [since reported in 2000 (2) JCLR 146 (All)], W. P. No. 3345 of 2000, Prakashan Raj Publication, Shastri Nagar, Meerut v. State ofu. P. , decided on 24-1-2000, [since reported in 2000 PNP. (Cr.) 397 (All); W. P. No. 4184 of 2000 Prakashak Mohit Printers Ghaziabad v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 28-1-2000; [since reported in 2000 (1) JCLR 1015 (All) and W. P. No. 11354 of 2000, Mohit Printers v. State of U. P. and others , decided on 16-3-2000. The petitioner was bound by the decree passed in suit aforesaid.
4. Since the question of breach of the decree stands concluded by findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as revisional Court, this Court cannot sift the controversial facts.
5. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order of punishment was passed against the petitioner for violating the decree in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and there is a business rivalry between the parties. What Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh suggested is that the punishment of imprisonment be con verted into an order of payment of com pensation to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Sri B. Dayal states that the order of compensa tion shall assuage the feelings of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 if an order of compensation is passed.
6. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to do complete justice in the matter. I, in exercise of my plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, substitute the punishment of imprisonment by a direc tion that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 directly and obtain a receipt of payment from them within a period of one month from today. If the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 refuse to accept the money, the petitioner shall be at l
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iberty to deposit the said amount with executing Court. 7. In case the aforesaid amount of compensation is not paid or deposited, the punishment awarded by the revisional Court shall revive. 8. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner further under takes that the petitioner shall not in any manner violate the decree passed in Suit No. 672 of 1998. Petition disposed of.