Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1303 (PNJ)

Krishan Lal v. Rakha Singh Jangu

2001-11-22

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Shri Krishan Lal has filed this contempt petition under Section 12 read with Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondents as they have flouted the orders dated 28.5.1962, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amloh. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are as follows :- Krishan Lal owned a house situated in Ward No. 2 within the municipal limits of Amloh. In front of the house, there was a `Chabutra and drain pipe. On 27.3.1962, the Municipal Committee, Amloh (hereinafter referred to as `the Committee) had passed a resolution and decided to demolish the `Chabutra and the drain. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee from demolishing the `Chabutra and drain built on the site belonging to him. 3 The suit was filed on 30.3.1962. It was contested by the Committee. At the close of the trial, it was decreed on 28.5.1962 by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amloh. 4. The Executive Officer-respondent No. 2, as per allegations contained in this petition, threatened to demolish the `Chabutra. On 16.3.2000, the petitioner issued a notice bringing to the notice of the Committee that it cannot construct any drain by demolishing the Chabutra as it is exclusively owned by him. Reference to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, as above, finds mention therein. A representation was also submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 3.5.2000, but the official respondents with the help of private respondents demolished the said Chabutra on 9.5.2000. In this way, they have intentionally and wilfully flouted the orders passed by the civil Court. 5. Notice in this petition was issued only to respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 has filed his written statement in the form of affidavit. It is denied that the order passed by the civil Court has been flouted or he has committed any wilful disobedience of the order passed by any court of law. The alleged disobedience of the order dated 28.5.1962 is denied being false and incorrect. 6. On merits, it is deposed that he remained posted as Executive Officer of the Committee from 21.4.1999 to 26.5.2000 before his transfer to Nagar Panchayat, Khamano. The alleged disobedience of the order dated 28.5.1962 is denied being false and incorrect. 6. On merits, it is deposed that he remained posted as Executive Officer of the Committee from 21.4.1999 to 26.5.2000 before his transfer to Nagar Panchayat, Khamano. During his tenure at Amloh, residents of ward No. 4 had approached the Committee for the maintenance of the said street which passes in front of the petitioners house. The said street being at a lower level and ill-maintained was the reason for unhygienic conditions causing inconvenience to the public at large because there was no proper disposal of drain water. In these circumstances, it was decided to maintain the street by carpeting it with cement. The drain in front of the house of the petitioner is still functional. It has not been demolished, as alleged by the petitioner. There wasnt any Chabutra in front of the house, as alleged by him. 7. I have heard Mr. Kulwinder Pal, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 8. The decree for permanent injunction in respect of the drain and `Chabutra, no doubt, was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 28.5.1962 by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amloh. Copy of the judgment is Annexure P-1 and the copy of the decree sheet is Annexure P-2. The petitioner being one of the residents of Ward No. 4 had also submitted an application against construction of illegal street on his land, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. 9. On the other hand, there is not only the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 but there are numerous affidavits of the residents of Ward No. 4 and they have stated that there was no `Chabutra in front of the house of Krishan Lal. Some of the affidavits read as under :- "I, Shiv Nandan, son of Shri Ram Sarup, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That I am a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for the last 15 years. 2. That I know Krishan Chand son of Shri Shankar Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. Fatehgarh Sahib, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That I am a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for the last 15 years. 2. That I know Krishan Chand son of Shri Shankar Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. That house of the above said Krishan Chand is situated in our street Ward No. 4, Amloh and there was no chabutra in front of his house for that last 15 years., Sd/- Deponent." "I, Jagdish Chand, son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That I am a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for the last 15/16 years. 2. That I know Krishan Chand son of Shri Shankar Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. That there was no chabutra in front of the house of the house of Krishan Chand, Ward No. 4, Amloh for the last 15/16 years. Sd/- Deponent." "I. Sanjeev Kumar, son of Shri Jagdish Chand, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That I am a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for the last 15/16 years. 2. That I know Krishan hand son of Shri Shankar Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. That there was no chabutra in front of the house of Krishan Chand, Ward No. 4, Amloh for the last 15/16 years. Sd/- Deponent." "I, Kuldeep Modi, son of Shri Noharia Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That I am a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for the last 17/18 years. 2. That I know Krishan Chand son of Shri Shankar Ram, resident of Ward No. 4, Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. That there was no chabutra in front of the house of Krishan Chand, Ward No. 4, Amloh for the last 17/18 years. Sd/- Deponent." 10 Be it may that at the time when the decree was passed by the civil Court on 28.5.1962 in favour of the petitioner, there existed a `Chabutta. Fatehgarh Sahib personally. 3. That there was no chabutra in front of the house of Krishan Chand, Ward No. 4, Amloh for the last 17/18 years. Sd/- Deponent." 10 Be it may that at the time when the decree was passed by the civil Court on 28.5.1962 in favour of the petitioner, there existed a `Chabutta. But now having regard to the affidavits of the residents of the locality, who are residing there for the last 17 or 18 years, there was no `Chabutra in front of the house of Krishan Lal, petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the counter affidavits of the other residents of the locality nor he has filed the additional affidavit that these persons are inimical to him and for that reason they have made wrong depositions by way of furnishing the affidavits. If the Committee takes any step for providing special amenities to the residents of the locality by carpeting the street and also the drains so that the flow of water is not obstructed, it cannot be said that the authorities concerned are transgressing their powers. Rather, they are taking steps for the proper maintenance of the streets and the drains. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, whether it can be said that there is wilful or intentional defiance on the part of the respondents or whether the petitioner has been ale to prove or establish that respondents No. 1 and 2 had demolished the `Chabutra, as alleged ? Whether the petitioner has been able to discharge the burden of proof which heavily lay upon him ? 12. In Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others, 2001 AIR SCW 1162, it has been observed that the contempt procedure is to be sparingly exercised with due care and caution. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under :- "The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under :- "The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi criminal and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of Lord Denning in Re. Bramblevale, 1969(3) All ER 1062, lend support to the aforesaid. Board Denning in Re Bramblevale stated : "A contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured phrase, it must be proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence....Where there are two equally inconsistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt." 13. In Union of India v. Satish Chander Sharma, 1992 SCC 194, it has been observed that the contempt power should be shielded and the sword should be drawn sparingly if the Court has been convinced that there has been wilful disobedience. 14. The powers under the Act being extra-ordinary in nature, the Court should be reluctant to exercise the powers, particularly in a civil contempt, as observed in the case of Nirvail Singh Dhillon v. Sohan Singh Bassi, 1971 P.L.R. 344 (P&H). It has also been observed that where a clear case of contemptuous conduct not explainable otherwise arises, then only the contemnors must be punished. 15. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the petitioner has not been able to prove and establish the wilful defiance on the part of the respondents or that they had in any way flouted the orders passed by the civil court. 16. 15. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the petitioner has not been able to prove and establish the wilful defiance on the part of the respondents or that they had in any way flouted the orders passed by the civil court. 16. It is true that the purpose of proceedings in contempt is mainly meant for upholding the majesty of law and dignity of the Court, but it is equally important and well settled that no contempt proceeding should be initiated merely on the asking of the party because the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. This has also been observed in C.O.C.P. No. 1537 of 2001 (Dharam Pal v. R.S. Malik, Superintending Engineer), decided on October 31, 2001 and C.O.C.P. No. 964 of 2000 (Dera Baba Samer Singh and another v. G.S. Ghuman, Land Acquisition Collector), decided on November 2, 2001. 17. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for taking action against the respondents under Section 12 of the Act. Dismissed. Rule against the respondents is hereby discharged.