JUDGMENT By the Court.—The respondents are not called upon. 2. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, on the 15th of December, 2006. 3. His Lordship, in contempt jurisdiction has directed demolition of construction over a large piece of property in Allahabad, appreciably over eight bighas of land. The details, the proceedings and the orders passed are set out clearly in the Hon’ble Single Judge’s order and our order is to be read only as a sequel thereto. The order for demolition was passed when the contempt application was moved for the purpose of enforcement of an earlier order dated the 7th of July, 2004 passed in writ petition No. 24396 of 2004. In the said order, it was clearly provided that so far as the eviction of the appellant was concerned, that would be carried out. 4. The position is that from as early as 1955, the appellant and/or his father appear to have filled up a pond and made constructions thereon without there being a single entry in the revenue records in favour of either of them. 5. The order of the learned Single Judge aims ultimately at the re-establishment of the pond, which is one of the main standard public duties now faced by the High Courts all over the country. Although the learned Single Judge has ordered demolition along with eviction, it is quite clear that no eviction can be completed, if the property and structures of the appellant are permitted to remain to any extent upon the lands. As such, the demolition is the only effective way of eviction. 6. The appellant’s hands are not at all clean. By suppression of the High Courts order dated the 7th of July, 2004, an order of injunction was obtained from the District Court of Allahabad in Suit No. 1080 of 2004. After the injunction order was vacated on 18-2-2006, a miscellaneous appeal was filed in the Lower Court bearing No. 53 of 2006 and on 10-4-2006 again an order of status quo was obtained without referring to the High Courts order dated the 7th of July, 2004. 7. Setting up the District Court against the High Courts order by suppression of the High Courts orders in proceedings before the District Court is an extremely serious abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Setting up the District Court against the High Courts order by suppression of the High Courts orders in proceedings before the District Court is an extremely serious abuse of the process of the Court. Unless mala fide and wholly unwarranted legal proceedings are stopped by appropriate orders of Court, the legal system will fail to continue to inspire any faith in the citizen. 8. The main submission of Mr. Paul appearing for the appellant before us today was that although the said Lower Court’s Suit of 1080 of 2004 has been dismissed on the 13th of December, 2006, yet his client has filed an appeal therefrom, again in the Lower Court. According to him, the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act gives a right for the filing of the Suit in Section 122-B (4-D) for obtaining supervening decrees even contrary to orders passed by the Assistant Collector or Collector. According to him, the statutory remedy, which is applicable to a Suit is equally applicable to an appeal from a decree of dismissal passed in a Suit. 9. From the point of view of law, Mr. Paul is hundred percent right perhaps even more, but if there is an abuse of the process of the Court, then the Court has to see to it that further orders of Court do not put a premium upon such perpetuation of abuse by a citizen. 10. This is a case with the worst facts possible. 11. The appeal is dismissed with costs. ————