Gujarat High Court Upholds Order Sending Man To 30-Day Civil Imprisonment For Selling Shop Despite Status Quo

The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court order which sent a man stated to be suffering from a disability to 30-day civil imprisonment for selling a shop despite a status quo order against such sale.

The high court rejected the contention of the petitioner's counsel that civil imprisonment imposed on the petitioner was wrong and that the court should have have weighed other options available to it–attachment of the property of the person guilty of such disobedience. 

Justice JL Odedra in his order observed that when the petitioner's advocate was questioned as to the property which was made available or which was pointed out to the Court for being attached, the advocate could not satisfy this Court as to the property which could have been attached. 

The high court order notes that the only instruction that the petitioner's advocate had was that there was some property in Ahmedabad, he could not provide the particulars of the said property. 

The court thereafter said, "In view of this petition, this Court believes that without mentioning the alternative options available to this Court, (or for that matter the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which could have weighed those options for exercising other mode of consequences owing to the disobedience of breach of injunction), the order of the Trial Court and that of the Appellate Court cannot be faulted on the ground that the said Courts did not weigh alternative options for exercising whilst punishing for breach for injunction. Hence, this Court believes that there is no error in the impugned orders. Therefore, this petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits". 

The court noted that when the petitioner had admitted in another matter that owing to his disability he sometimes forgets, and that for those reasons, he has forgotten that there existed a status-quo order against the selling of the said shop.

It was the petitioner's case that the said shop was sold but it was not a deliberate act to flout the orders of the trial court. 

The counsel contended that owing to petitioner's disability and for his treatment, the shop was sold.

"It was thus stated that it was out of compulsion that the said shop was sold. However, such vague and utterly cooked up versions cannot be relied on. Hence, such contention is rejected," the high court said.

Case title: DIPAKKUMAR KIRTILAL SHAH Versus NAVINKUMAR BANSIDHAR MAHESHWARI

Click Here To Read/Download Order