Learned District Judge in his order dated November 3, 2000 noticed in para 3 that the plaintiff was owner of two trucks HP 12-2209 and HP 11-4009 and had deployed these trucks with defendant No. 2 for lifting the clinker from GACL Complex since April, 1997. Learned District Judge in his impugned order observed that the order passed by him has to be read along with the pleadings, proof and other data on record in the suit itself and the operative part of the order, though does not refer to particular registration number of the trucks, however, identity of these three trucks was to be found in the suit laid by the plaintiff and therefore, it was not open for the defendants to say that as registration numbers of the trucks were not given and, therefore, not bound to comply with the orders.
25. In our view, the reasoning given by the learned District Judge is fallacious and cannot be accepted. When an order is passed by the Court, it is not open to a party to go behind the order, by looking into the pleadings together the intention of the Court or mind of the Presiding Officer, to comply with the orders of the Court, particularly when any non-compliance entail punitive consequences.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
F.A.O. Nos. 319 and 426 of 2001
Decided On: 08.01.2003
Sushil Mittal and Anr. Vs. R.D. Bhardwaj and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kamlesh Sharma, Actg. C.J. and K.C. Sood, J.
Kamlesh Sharma, Actg. C.J. and K.C. Sood, J.
Citation: 2004(1) Civil court cases341 HP
