JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, has been filed by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alwar Shri Sushil Kumar Jain before whom the matter arising out of Civil Suit No. 22/2008 (Suresh Chand Mittal and others v. Chainsingh & Ors.) was pending. 2. In the said civil suit, an application for the grant of temporary injunction came to be filed being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 46/22 of 2008 with the prayer for the grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1, along with the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 from running the marriage garden on the land mentioned in the plaint as Kothi Ganga Niwas and shown in red colour in the accompanying map as A, B, C and D. 3. The learned trial Court on the application for the grant of temporary injunction in the suit riled by the plaintiff in a representative capacity had passed an ad-interim ex parte order of temporary injunction on 6.11.2008 restraining the petitioner-defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 from running the marriage garden in the land in dispute. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the application for the grant of temporary injunction and despite a few dates having been elapsed, even after riling of the reply, the learned trial Court did not hear the matter and consequently the petitioner approached this Court by means of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631 of 2009 against the order dated 6.11.2008. 5. In the writ petition, the prayer made was for setting aside the order dated 6.11.2008 and alternatively to issue a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction within a stipulated time. 6. This Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631 of 2009 on 22.1.2009 passed the following orders : "The prayer in the writ petition is that by an interim order dated 6.11.2008 the learned trial Court has restrained the petitioner by passing an order for temporary injunction and the matter has not been heard on merits despite the fact that the service is complete and this is adversely affecting the business of the petitioner who is suffering irreparable loss on this account. It is submitted that nearly 7 or 8 adjournments have been given by the learned trial Court and the matter has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Court for deciding the application for the grant of temporary injunction on next date or the operation of the interim order may be stayed. Having heard the learned counsel, it is directed "that the learned trial Court shall hear and dispose of the application for temporary injunction on the next date fixed. In case, the application is not heard and decided either at the instance of the Court or the opposite party, it would be open for the petitioner to make a request to this Court for stay of the order dated 6.11.2008. Subject to the above, this writ petition is disposed of." 7. The petitioner on 27.1.2009 filed an application before the learned trial Court, along with a copy of the order dated 22.1.2009 bringing to the notice of the learned trial Court the directions of this Court in its order dated 22.1.2009 for deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction on the next date already fixed i.e. 29.1.2009, which was the date fixed before the learned trial Court. 8. Despite the aforesaid order dated 22.1.2009 having been brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Court, the non-petitioner by means of the application dated 27.1.2009 and requesting the Court to decide the matter in accordance therewith, learned Presiding Officer, the non-petitioner, herein adjourned the case on 29.1.2009 to 17.2.2009 and also extended the interim order dated 6.11.2008 till the said date without having cared to look into the order dated 22.1.2009 or making reference of the same in the order. 9. The order-sheet of the learned trial Court passed by the non-petitioner on 29.1.2009 reads as follows " 29-1-2009 i{kdkjku Jh uanyky 'kekZ d0fy0u0i0 dh vksj ls pSuflag] fodzeflag mi0 vk;sA fyf[kr cgl izfroknhx.k us is'k dhA udy fnykbZ xbZA i=koyh vxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fnaukd 17-2-2009 dks is'k gks A rc rd iwoZ dk vkns'k izHkkoh jgsxkA " Seal of Court"(Note : There are no signatures of the P.O. the non-petitioner on the order-sheet). 10. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Court, submitted that the aforesaid action of the learned trial Court of adjourning the case and extending the interim order of stay, despite the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 22.1.2009 to decide the matter on the date fixed is willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 22.1.2009, which was filed and brought to the notice of the Court as per averments made in Para 3 of the contempt application. 11. The submission, therefore, is that the aforesaid inaction and the deliberate omission on the part of the respondents to comply with the directions of this Court amounts to a civil contempt. 12. Notices were issued to the respondents, the Presiding Officer of the Court, the non-petitioner, in response to it, has submitted his reply. The respondent has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology at the very out set and stated that he has highest regard for the majesty of law and orders passed by this Court. 13. In the reply, the non-petitioner has not denied that an application along with the copy of the order of this Court dated 22.1.2009 was filed in Court on 29.1.2009 and all that has stated in reply to Para 3 is that "on 29.1.2009 arguments were made and also written arguments were submitted only on behalf of the defendant No. 1, while the other parties to the suit sought time and, therefore, with the consent of both the parties the case was adjourned for 17.2.2009. The next date was given in the presence of both the parties as it is also evident from the order-sheet dated 29.1.2009, which contains the signatures of the parties." 14. It has further been stated that on 17.2.2009 the answering respondent was on leave and, therefore, the case was adjourned for 24.2.2009. On 24.2.2009 and 5.3.2009, which were the dates fixed in the case, the Advocates abstained themselves from the work and, therefore, no effective order could be passed. 15. The respondent has further submitted that on subsequent dates the parties submitted that since the matter is pending before this Court, the case was adjourned. On 24.2.2009 and 5.3.2009, which were the dates fixed in the case, the Advocates abstained themselves from the work and, therefore, no effective order could be passed. 15. The respondent has further submitted that on subsequent dates the parties submitted that since the matter is pending before this Court, the case was adjourned. It is submitted by the respondents that he made efforts to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction finally, but on account of the aforesaid reasons the application could not be decided. The order-sheets have been filed, along with the reply filed by the non-petitioner as Annexures. 16. While, I would have been persuaded to take a lenient view in the matter, but I find from the record that the attitude of the respondent, despite the fact that the order dated 22.1.2009 was brought to his notice by filing an application before the learned trial Court on 27.1.2009, has been very, casual paying scant regard for the orders and directions of this Court. 17. What has been stated in Para 3 of the reply filed by the respondents is not reflected in the order-sheet dated 29.1.2009. 18. In Para 3 of the reply, it has been stated that arguments were heard but this has not recorded in the order-sheet dated 29.1.2009 and all that has been recorded is that the written arguments were submitted on behalf of the defendant, who is the petitioner before this Court. 19. What transpired in the Court as stated in the reply is not reflected in the said order-sheet of the Court record. Even otherwise, there is no mention of the fact that under the order dated 22.1.2009 there was a direction of this Court to decide the matter for grant of temporary injunction on the date already fixed that was 29.1.2009. 20. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer has not even bothered to take note of the order passed by this Court on 22.1.2009. There is also no reasons stated in the order-sheets dated 29.1.2009 for adjourning the case to 17.2.2009 i.e. for a period of about three weeks and extending the interim order dated 6.11.2008 for the aforesaid period. 21. Another thing that I find in the order-sheet dated 29.1.2009 is that the Presiding Officer has not even signed the same. it only bears the seal of the Presiding Officer without any signature. 21. Another thing that I find in the order-sheet dated 29.1.2009 is that the Presiding Officer has not even signed the same. it only bears the seal of the Presiding Officer without any signature. This Court has, therefore, circled the aforesaid seal minus the signature in annexures to this reply, which shows the callous approach of the respondent Presiding Officer. 22. Apart from above, it may also be stated here that after the order dated 29.1.2009 adjourning the 'case was passed by the learned trial Court by the respondent the petitioner approached this Court on account of the liberty granted to the petitioner under the order dated 22.1.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631 of 2009 and this Court taking note of the proceedings dated 29.1.2009 and the facts mentioned by the petitioner in the miscellaneous application filed before this Court being S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2009 passed an interim order on 16.2.2009 staying the operation of the ad-interim order of temporary injunction dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court with certain conditions attached. 23. The order dated 16.2.2009, which was passed by this Court in the miscellaneous application bearing No. 30 of 2009 reads as follows : This application has been filed on the ground that despite the order dated 22.1.2009, the learned trial Court did not hear and 'decide the application for the grant of temporary injunction "on the next date fixed" i.e. 29.1.2009, as directed by this Court and case was adjourned to 17.2.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the above order disposing of the writ petition, passed by this Court, against the ad interim ex parte order dated 6.11.2008 by which the petitioner had been restrained from carrying out the business of marriage lawn on the land in dispute and despite the petitioner having filed reply to the temporary injunction application, the learned trial Court was not hearing the matter and the ex parte ad interim order was causing great hardship to the petitioner who had taken the bookings for the marriage lawn. Even the other defendants had filed a suit earlier which had been dismissed by the competent Court and this fresh suit has been filed at the instance of some other persons for the similar relief. Even the other defendants had filed a suit earlier which had been dismissed by the competent Court and this fresh suit has been filed at the instance of some other persons for the similar relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid order of this Court directing the learned trial Court to decide the application for grant of temporary application "on the next date fixed", the learned trial Court did not decide the application on 29.1.2009 but instead adjourned the case to 17.2.2009. It is submitted that even if some time was required to accommodate the opposite party, the matter could have been fixed for a shorter period as the marriage season with the auspicious dates has already commenced w.e.f. 14.2.2009 and the ad interim ex-parte order dated 6.11.2008 is causing great inconvenience to the petitioner as well as the persons who have booked the marriage lawn. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 22.1.2009 and I find that this Court while disposing of the writ petition has granted permission to the petitioner that in case the case is adjourned and not heard on the next date, it would be open for the petitioner to make a request to this Court for staying the operation of the order dated 6.11.2008. I have perused this misc. application, the order dated 22.1.2009, which has been filed as Annexure-2 and the application which was submitted by the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 27.1.2009 along with a copy of the order of this Court. Issue notice to the respondents. Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court on the misc. application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code shall remain stayed. Issue notice to the respondents. Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court on the misc. application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code shall remain stayed. It is, however, directed that (i) the petitioner shall ensure that the parking of the vehicles is done in an orderly manner so that free now of traffic on the main road is not obstructed, for this purpose security staff will be engaged by the petitioner for carrying out parking in a proper manner; (ii) the petitioner shall ensure that the use of loud speakers is not permitted beyond 10:00 PM; and (iii) the petitioner shall ensure that whatever wastage of food, etc., is there, is disposed of in a proper manner by paying the requisite charges to the Municipal Council, Alwar so that no nuisance or unhygienic conditions occurs in the locality on this account. 24. Despite the fact that operation of the impugned order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court had been stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2009 subsequent order-sheets of the learned trial Court dated 17.2.2009, 24.2.2009, 5.3.2009 and 13.3.2009 respectively, which have been filed, along with the reply to the contempt notice show that the respondent has paid scant regard to the order of this Court dated 16.2.2009. 25. The aforesaid order-sheets of the learned trial Court read as follows " 17-2-2009 odqyk; QjhdSu mi0A ih0vks0 lkgc vodk'k ij gSaA i{k0 okLrs vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 24-5-2009 dks is'k gksaA rc rd iwoZ dk vkns'k izHkkoh jgsxkA " " 24-2-2009 odqyk; QjhdSu mi0A odhy leqnk; us vifBr i{k0 okLrs vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 5-3-2009 dks is'k gksaA rc rd iwoZ dk vkns'k izHkkoh jgsxkA " " 5-3-2009 odqyk; QjhdSu mi0A odhy leqnk; us vifBr i{k0 okLrs vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 13-3-2009 dks is'k gksaA rc rd iwoZ dk vkns'k izHkkoh jgsxkA " " 13-3-2009 odqyk; QjhdSu mi0A ih0vks0 lkgc vodk'k ij gSaA i{k0 okLrs vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 21-3-2009 dks is'k gksaA rc rd iwoZ dk vkns'k izHkkoh jgsxkA " 26. Recording in the order-sheet while adjourning the case, despite directions to decide the matter and extending the stay order dated 6.11.2008, the fact that this Court under the order dated 16.2.2009 had already stayed the operation of the ex parte order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court, shows the absolute casual approach of the non-petitioner, the Presiding Officer concerned and the scant regard he had for the orders passed by this Court. This is nothing, but the willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court apart from dereliction of duty. 27. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to take note of the aforesaid facts and find the respondent guilty of contempt of the orders of this Court. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why in the above facts and circumstance, he may not be punished for contempt.Order accordingly. *******