Judgment 1. This is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 2. Bhagat Singh-petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 550 squares yards as 165/1944 share of 10 Kanal, 16 marlas land comprising in Khasra No.4/24/1 and14/4/1 situated in Risala, Tehsil and District Panipat, for a consideration of Rs. 66,000.00 vide sale deed dated 19-5-1990. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour on 20-8-1994. 3. The respondent with the intention to grab the land in question, tried to demolish the Northern boundary wall of the plot, which gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction by the plaintiff. The Civil Court vide its order dated 18/03/1996 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Copy of the order is annexed herewith the petition as Annexure P-2. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 6/12/1997 as per order Annexure P-3. 4. In January, 2001, the contemnors started doing earth filling work in the plot in question besides doing some foundation work on the plot. The petitioner again approached the contemnors to desist from forcibly dispossessing him. The petitioner also approached the Superintendent of Police, Panipat to take necessary action against the contemnors. On 30/01/2001, the petitioner had engaged some mason and labourers to do the construction work on the plot. The contemnors arrived there and threatened the labourers and the petitioner with dire consequences. 5. The respondents in their reply have taken certain preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached the trial Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, it has been averred that the answering respondent has also purchased 10/125 share of the land along with respondent No. 2 from Smt. Lajwanti vide sale deed dated 20/01/1994 out of Khasra No. 4/24/1 measuring 6 kanals, 5 marlas. Smt. Lajwanti had purchased this land from Shri Rajpal vide registered sale deed dated 14/07/1997. It is pleaded, inter alia, that the petitioner is not in exclusive ownership of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4/24/1 and he is only a co-sharer. The answering respondent never tried to demolish the Northern boundary wall of the plot as alleged in the petition. The judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner was ex parte. It is pleaded, inter alia, that the petitioner is not in exclusive ownership of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4/24/1 and he is only a co-sharer. The answering respondent never tried to demolish the Northern boundary wall of the plot as alleged in the petition. The judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner was ex parte. The petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, all the co-sharers are deemed to be in possession of the land, which is a joint Khatta. It is also denied that they have ever threatened the labourers or the petitioner with dire consequences. It is pleaded that they have not committed any wilful or intentional disobedience of the order. If the Court considers that they have committed any contempt of the Court, then they tender their unqualified apology, which may be accepted. 6. I have heard Shri Narender Hooda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Malik, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the original owner of the plots purchased by the parties was Smt. Lajwanti. It is also not denied that Des Raj-respondent No. 2 was not a party to the Suit No. 48/1996 filed by Bhagat Singh against Dilawar Singh-respondent No. 1, decided on 6/12/1997. This apart, respondent No. 2 in his reply in the form of affidavit, has specifically deposed that he has already sold his share to Shri Varinder Singh son of Lehna Singh for a consideration of Rs. 34,000.00 vide a registered sale deed dated 26-9-1996. The ex parte order was passed on 6-12-1996 against Dilawar Singh. Thus, even on the date of passing of the decree in the civil suit, respondent No. 2 had no interest in the property in question. 8. As regards Dilawar Singh-respondent No. 2 when a specific decree has been passed restraining him from interferring in the possession of the plaintiff over the plot as fully detailed and described therein and the decree has not been challenged till today, then the plea of the answering respondent in the reply that the petitioner was not in possession of exclusive possession of the plot in dispute as it was not partitioned, is not tenable. It is open for the parties to approach the appropriate authorities to seek partition of the property in case it is joint, but the respondent has got no right to disturb the possession of the petitioner forcibly or illegally, especially when the Civil Court has already recorded a finding against him by way of decreeing the suit for injunction in favour of the petitioner. Any such attempt to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff qua the property which is the subject-matter of the decree, would render him liable to contempt and it has been duly proved that the answering respondent i.e. Dilawar Singh-respondent No. 1 has been interfering with the possession of the petitioner qua the plot in question. 9. It is well-settled that jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary, but the consequences are serious. Why would the petitioner who was already armed with a decree in his favour by the Civil Court, knock at the door of the Court and that too for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents, had the respondents not violated the decree passed in his favour. He will do so only in the compelling circumstances, i.e. when his right in the property is infringed and this is what has happened in the case in hand. 10. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Murray and Co. V/s. Ashok Kumar Newatia, 2001 RSJ 22 has been engrafted in the statute book for the purpose of bringing confidence in people in general for the due and proper administration of justice in the country. It has been further observed by the Apex Court that though judicial hyper-sensitivity is not warranted, but angelic silence on the part of the Judge is also not accepted vis-a-vis the majesty of law. Under para 10 at page 24, it has been further observed as under :- 11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the answering respondent i.e. respondent No. 1 against whom an ex parte decree of injunction has already been passed and who has not assailed the decree till today, has made a deliberate attempt to impede the administration of justice by interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the property in question. The decree passed by the Civil Court is binding upon him unless it is set aside or modified. The decree passed by the Civil Court is binding upon him unless it is set aside or modified. Thus, any attempt or act on his part of interference in the possession of the petitioner would amount to violation of the terms of the decree. 12. Having the conspectus of the whole issue of facts and circumstances as discussed above, I am of the considered view that Dilawar Singh-respondent No. 1 has committed contempt of the Court and is, therefore, liable to be punished. He is punished to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs. 2000.00. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer further imprisonment for 15 days. 13. The order shall become operational after the expiry of three months period. The time is allowed to the respondent to enable him to avail the remedy, if so advised, available to him. 14. As regards, Des Raj-respondent No. 2, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against him. This petition qua him is dismissed. Rule discharged.