JUDGMENT 1. - This is a contempt petition against Smt. Santosh Kumari filed Under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and further Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 2. A suit was instituted by Sobhit Kala for declaration, recovery of possession, mense profits and permanent injunction before District Judge, Jaipur City which was decreed on 5.5.1999 by Additional District Judge No. 1. It related to a plot No. 13 situated at Ajmer Road, near ESI Hospital, Jaipur. Its appeal was preferred by Smt. Santosh Kumar before this Court. On 5.7.1999, the following order was passed "Send for the record. Meanwhile, the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained. Put up as soon as the record is received. Requisition be given to Mr. R.K. Agarwal." 3. It is alleged that when on 18.11.2000, the petitioner who is one of the respondents in the appeal went towards the suit property on casual visit, he noticed the construction work being carried by the contemner. The height of the side wall as well of the front wall was raised by 4-5 feet and the height of the iron front gate wall supporting pillars of two sides was also substantially raised. The contemner was asked to stop the work and was reminded of the order; to which she, her husband Dwarka Prasad and son Ashok Kumar got enraged and asked the petitioner to leave the place immediately. It was also noticed that a big pucca water reservoir of bricks and cement was made in the suit property. On inquiry it was told that the contemner would start service station over the suit property. The contemner also obtained a three phase electric connection of 6 Kw. On 24.11.2000 against the meter No. 10137522 and service No. 355272. The connection is for non-domestic purpose. Thus, the contemner in wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 5.7.1999 made construction, obtained new three phase non-domestic electric connection, built pucca water reservoir for running service station and she despite being cautioned by the petitioner continued with the work. On 19.11.2000, the petitioner got the photographs snapped by hiring services of Kala Photo Palace, Film Colony, Choura Rasta, Jaipur. Because of the serious protest by the contemner hardly three snaps could be taken and they depict the condition of the property on 19.11.2000. On 19.11.2000, the petitioner got the photographs snapped by hiring services of Kala Photo Palace, Film Colony, Choura Rasta, Jaipur. Because of the serious protest by the contemner hardly three snaps could be taken and they depict the condition of the property on 19.11.2000. The petitioner reported the matter to the police about the apprehension of breach of peace and the police after investigation submitted complaint against the contemner and her family members before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (South), Jaipur Under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. where all of them have been bound down. It has been prayed that the contemner be punished for wilful disobedience. 4. In the reply, the order passed by this Court was admitted but it has been averred that the contemner has not carried any construction work over the plot/land and the allegations are baseless and are made only to threaten her and compromise the matter out of the Court. The contemner had applied for the three phase electric connection some time in the year 1989 and the meter was fixed by the officials of the R.S.E.B. outside the walls and the same did not change the situation of the land/plot. Since the application for to electric connection was submitted long ago there was no intention of the contemner to start any business or to disobey the order of this Court. She did not carry out any construction work and the photographs were not snapped in her presence. The fact of proceeding Under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was admitted but it was submitted that these proceedings were initiated so that the contemner may be compelled to compromise the matter. It was further submitted that the contemner has the highest regard for this Court and she had no intention to flout the order. She has tendered unconditional apology. Both the parties filed their affidavits. The petitioner has also filed the rejoinder along with some affidavits. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 6. She has tendered unconditional apology. Both the parties filed their affidavits. The petitioner has also filed the rejoinder along with some affidavits. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 6. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the petition are substantiated from the photographs which have been filed on record. The question arises as to when they were snapped. No date is printed on the photographs. There is affidavit of the petitioner himself in support of the contempt petition. The affidavit of Prem Chand Kala, photographer has been submitted along with the rejoinder. The same was not submitted with the petition. In his affidavit, Prem Chand Kala has stated that he snapped the photographs on 19.11.2000 and hindrance was made by some persons including a lady who was identified as Smt. Santosh Kumari. Affidavit of Pradeep Sethi was also filed with the rejoinder in which he has stated that photographer Prem Chand Kala took three snaps on 19.11.2000 and Smt. Santosh Kumari created hindrance. These affidavits were not initially submitted with the petition and have been procured after reply was filed by the contemner. However, I have looked into them as well as the affidavit of Smt. Santosh Kumari submitted on 21.3.2001 after the rejoinder was filed in which she has stated that application for three phase electricity connection was submitted on 4.4.89 and necessary charges were deposited on 9.8.89 and the connection was released on the basis of application submitted on 4.4.89. Her son Ashok Kumar applied for a loan under the Prime Minister's Employment Scheme but could not avail of the facility keeping in view the stay order. Her son Ashok Kumar applied for a loan under the Prime Minister's Employment Scheme but could not avail of the facility keeping in view the stay order. It has also been stated in the affidavit that Prem Chand Kala, photographer is a close relative of petitioner and Pradeep Sethi is the husband of Smt. Shiv Sethi who is plaintiff-respondent No. 4 in the appeal and hence both of them are interested witnesses and should not be believed. 8. The photographer and Smt. Shiv Sethi do not appear to be independent witnesses. 9. It may be stated that Dwarka Prasad who is the husband of the contemner had filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur which is Annexure-R/4 stating therein that on 28.11.2000 at about 11.00 or 12.00 `O clock in the noon, Sobhit Kale, Pradeep Sethi and a photographer of Kala Photo Palace came in different vehicles, numbers of which have been given in para No. 3 of the complaint and asked them to vacate the house and gave beatings. During this time a photographer was taking some snaps relates to the occurrence dated 28.11.2000. It is not known as to what happened to this complaint. However, the date of taking photographs is admitted to be 28.11.2000 and not 15 19.11.2000 as alleged in the contempt petition. In view of this the photographs were not taken on 19.11.2000. However, even if the photographs were snapped on 28.11.2000, the question arises whether any contempt was committed by the contemner. 10. It is admitted that electricity connection has been released but that was on the basis of application submitted in the year 1989. No business has been started and status quo is being maintained in the premises. So far as construction work is concerned, out of the three photographs it is seen in photographs No. 1 that a person is standing near the right side of gate bending himself towards the gate. No tools etc. are visible. There is no brick or mortar visible, therefore, it cannot be said whether he was working there. There is nothing on record to show as to who he is and no conclusion can be drawn that he was working on the gate on behalf of contemnor. The gate and pillars are quite high. They were already existing when the photographs were taken. There is nothing on record to show as to who he is and no conclusion can be drawn that he was working on the gate on behalf of contemnor. The gate and pillars are quite high. They were already existing when the photographs were taken. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the condition of the site when the order to maintain status quo was passed on 5.7.99. The allegation of the petitioner is that the height of the side wall as also the front wall was raised by four to five feet and the height of the front iron gate and supporting pillars of two sides was also substantially raised. This work is not of such a type which may be carried in one day or in a short time. There should be sufficient evidence to prove as to when it was carried and as to what was the condition of the premises at the time when the order of status quo was passed. There is nothing on record to show as what was the height of the side wall as well as of the front wall and the height of the front iron gate and supporting pillars of two sides on the date when stay order was passed. Therefore, I am of the view that in absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the contemner has committed any violation of the order passed by this Court. 11. So far as installation of electric connection is concerned, it is well proved from the affidavit of the contemner that the connection has been released on the basis of application submitted on 4.4.89 while the necessary charges were deposited on 9.8.89 vide three receipts, numbers of which have been given in the affidavit of Smt. Santosh Kumari. There is nothing to prove that pucca water reservoir was constructed for the purpose of starting a service station as the photographs do not show it and Smt. Santosh Kumari so had denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. Boundary wall existed at the time when the house was purchased by Smt. Santosh Kumari as stated by Kanhaiya Lal Pareek before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 when he was examined on 9.12.98. Boundary wall existed at the time when the house was purchased by Smt. Santosh Kumari as stated by Kanhaiya Lal Pareek before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 when he was examined on 9.12.98. He stated in the cross examination that the boundary wall was 6 to 7 feet high at the time of sale of the property. Thus no question of raising it to the extent shown in photographs at the time alleged by petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the contemnor cited Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, Delhi v. Mrs. Kamla Mathur, Delhi & Anr., 1983 Cr.L.J. 495 which distinguishes between the criminal and the civil contempt. According to it, disobedience of injunction is a civil contempt and not a criminal contempt. This rulling does not apply to the present case because no injunction order issued by any Subordinate Judge is said to have been flouted. Rather this Court has 1 issued the order to maintain status quo, contempt of which is not proved. 13. In view of the above discussion, the notice is discharged and the contempt petition is hereby dismissed.Contempt Petition Dismissed. *******