ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the respondents and for punishing them for deliberate disobedience of specific order of injunction passed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2007 in I.A.No.2814 of 2007 arising out of Second Appeal No.62 of 2007 in the following words:- “During the pendency of this interlocutory application the sole respondent is restrained from making any construction over the suit land and also from changing the nature and character thereof.” 2. The aforesaid second appeal had arisen out of Title Suit No.347 of 2002 which was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the encroached portion of suit land measuring 5 Katha and 15 dhurs of R.S. Plot No.753 appertaining to khata no.270 situated in Village Karasghat within the district of Gopalganj and the said suit of the petitioner was decreed by the trial Court on 31.05.2005. Against the judgment and decree of trial court, the sole defendant (O. P. No.1) filed Title Appeal No.58 of 2005 and the lower appellate court allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2007 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of reversal passed by the court of appeal below, the petitioner filed the above-mentioned Second Appeal No.62 of 2007 which is pending before this High Court. 3. In the said second appeal the petitioner (appellant) filed I.A.No.2814 of 2007 for restraining the sole respondent (O.P.No.1) from making any construction over the suit premises and also from changing the nature and character of the suit land till final disposal of the Second Appeal. The said interlocutory application was heard by this Court on 11.05.2007 and notices of the said application were directed to be issued to the sole respondent by both processes, namely ordinary course as well as by registered post, and during the pendency of the said application, the sole respondent (opposite party no.1) was restrained from making any construction over the suit land. The said interlocutory application is also pending. 4. The said interlocutory application is also pending. 4. The claim of the petitioner was that the above mentioned R.S. Plot No.753 totally measuring 7 katha 5 dhur belonged to Smt. Vidya Kuwar wife of Gauri Shankar Sah, out of which she sold 5 katha 15 dhurs by registered sale deed to the petitioner and the remaining 1 katha 10 dhurs of land was sold by her to the defendant. It was further stated that taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, the defendant put flour engine, Pual etc. over the purchased land of the petitioner and when the petitioner returned and requested the opposite party to remove his articles, he refused and hence the aforesaid suit had to be filed by the petitioner in which pleader commissioner and thereafter a survey knowing pleader commissioner were appointed and they submitted their respective reports dated 04.12.2002 and 12.09.2003 finding some temporary and new structures along with building materials on the land in question and hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial court decreed the suit and allowed the claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the said the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed by the lower appellate court and being emboldened by the same the opposite party started collecting building materials for making construction over the disputed land and hence when the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.62 of 2007 against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, she also filed I.A.No.2814 of 2007 under the provision of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the respondents from alienating & encumbering the suit land and making any construction over the same and also for maintaining status quo till the final disposal of the second appeal. On hearing the said interlocutory application, interim order dated 11.05.2007 mentioned above was passed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that on the basis of judgment and decree of trial Court, the petitioner had filed Execution Case No.04 of 2005 and in that case opposite party no.1 had filed an application dated 11.05.2007 for dismissing the said execution case in view of judgment and decree of lower appellate court reversing the judgment and decree of trial court. Against the said application, petitioner had filed a rejoinder dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure-2) in the executing court in which the order for injunction dated 11.05.2007 passed by this Court in S.A.No.62 of 2007 was specifically mentioned. It is also stated that a copy of the said rejoinder was also served upon the advocate of the opposite party in the execution case. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further claimed that the petitioner also informed opposite party no.1 Kamal Sharma with respect to the aforesaid order of injunction, but in spite of that the said opposite party in collusion with opposite party no.2 Sidha Nath Jha, who was A.S.I. of Mohammadpur Police Station, started construction work over the disputed land in violation of the injunction order stating that he did not care for such orders of any court. It has also been stated that the petitioner met Circle Officer, Sidhwalia with an application informing about the aforesaid order and the collusion of defendant with A.S.I. and hence the said Circle Officer wrote letter no.251 dated 18.05.2007 to the Officer-in-Charge, Mohamadpur Police Station narrating all the facts and directing to comply the said order of High Court immediately, but the opposite parties in collusion with each other did not stop the work. Thereafter the mother of the petitioner approached the Collector, Gopalganj on 24.05.2007 along with an application annexing a copy of this Court’s order, but no step was taken by the authorities. Hence, he submitted that opposite parties committed gross disobedience and willful violation of the order of this Court and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 8. In the said circumstances, notices were issued to both the opposite parties who appeared through their respective learned counsel and contested the claim of the petitioner and this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 15.12.2010 found that this was an important matter in which an enquiry is required to see as to whether the said order of this Court has been violated knowingly and as to when the building has been completed and whether there was any collusion between the A.S.I. and the respondent. Hence, the learned District Judge, Gopalganj was directed to make an enquiry in the aforesaid matter, including spot inspection of the concerned premises to ascertain the facts, apart from the materials available on the record of the case there and if necessary, further evidence may be taken in the matter and after completion of the said enquiry, report must be submitted before this Court by 15th of March, 2011. 9. Finally the learned District Judge, Gopalganj submitted his inquiry report dated 10.05.2011 to this Court after making full on the spot enquiry on 05.05.2011 and also after considering the relevant materials and arriving at the following conclusions:- “On the basis of the above evidence, attaching report, I am of the considered opinion that the order has been violated knowingly and building was completed after passing of order in I.A.No.2814/07 of S.A.No.62/07 dated 11.05.2007 and there was collusion between Sidha Nath Jha, A.S.I. and the respondent in continuing and getting completed the building after Hon’ble Court’s order.” 10. Opposite Party No.1 Kamal Sharma, who was the sole respondent in the second appeal submitted his objection dated 26.07.2011 to the said enquiry report stating that there was no evidence to suggest that any construction was made after receiving notice of the order of injunction and in page-2 of the said report it was mentioned that service report of notice was not available, whereas in page 7 of the report, the District Judge found it difficult to fix a date of completion of work and merely held that construction was completed after passing of the High Court order. 11. Learned counsel for the said opposite party averred that he was in possession of land in question since the date of purchase and the Advocate Commissioner’s report of 2003 also finds pucca construction on the land, whereas the District Judge in his report also found old and new constructions on the land in question and hence there was no change in the nature of the land. He claimed that defendant –O.P. No.1 Kamal Sharma had no notice of the order of injunction passed by this Court and he never intended or can intend to violate any order of this Court. 12. He claimed that defendant –O.P. No.1 Kamal Sharma had no notice of the order of injunction passed by this Court and he never intended or can intend to violate any order of this Court. 12. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Kamal Sharma further stated that page 8 of the inquiry report shows that A.W.1 in his evidence denied that either of the opposite parties used any derogatory words against the Court, hence the claim of the petitioner in paragraph 18 of the MJC petition is falsified. He also claimed that in paragraph 18 of the MJC petition it was stated that petitioner was kicked out of police station but in page 8 of the inquiry report it was found that she was detained whole day in the police station. 13. Learned counsel for the said opposite party also submitted that there were contradictions in the MJC petition as well as in the claims of the petitioner as the other opposite party Sidha Nath Jha was at some place referred to as A.S.I. and somewhere as Officer-in-Charge. He also stated that the land in question was in defendants’ possession since his purchase dated 10.05.1999 which fact was admitted by the petitioner and the Commissioner submitted his report in the suit finding possession and structure of the defendant-opposite party no.1. He also submitted that Opposite Party no.1 Kamal Sharma made construction on the land in question on 25.03.2007 till 26.04.2007 only and not thereafter and hence there was no question of opposite party violating this Court’s order which was passed on 11.05.2007. He stated that due to white washing of the old building it looked new and hence the District Judge while making spot inquiry confused himself. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 Kamal Sharma averred that photo produced with the enquiry report bears no date nor the District Judge disclosed the extent of the earlier construction, hence, the inquiry report was not just and proper. So far the filing of application in execution case is concerned, he said that it has no significance as the execution case was filed for execution of the decree of the trial court which had been reversed by the lower appellate court. Hence, he claimed that no case of contempt is made out against opposite party no.1 Kamal Sharma. 15. So far the filing of application in execution case is concerned, he said that it has no significance as the execution case was filed for execution of the decree of the trial court which had been reversed by the lower appellate court. Hence, he claimed that no case of contempt is made out against opposite party no.1 Kamal Sharma. 15. The other opposite party, namely O.P.no.2 Sidha Nath Jha, who was A.S.I., filed his objection to the enquiry report on 26.07.2011. His learned advocate argued that the allegation is against the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, but the said opposite party was not the Officer-in-Charge, nor any Officer-in-Charge has been impleaded by the petitioner. Hence, according to him, this MJC petition is not maintainable against him on that score alone. 16. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 Sidha Nath Jha also averred that the allegation of use of derogatory words by him against the High Court had been falsified by the statement of the petitioner given as A.W.1 during the inquiry as he denied it which is clear from page 8 of the inquiry report. He also claimed that there is no finding of the District Judge on the said issue in the inquiry report. 17. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that petitioner had filed Title Suit No.347 of 2002 against opposite party no.1 Kamal Sharma for declaration of title of sole plaintiff and recovery of possession of the suit land alleged to have been encroached by the sole defendant (opposite party no.1) and the said suit was decreed by the trial court on 31.05.2005, but the said judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed by the lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.03.2007 passed in Title Appeal No.58 of 2005 which was filed by the defendant. It is also not in dispute that against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff (petitioner) filed Second Appeal No.62 of 2007 in which she filed I.A.No.2814 of 2007 for an order of injunction and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the following order was passed by this Court on 11.05.2007:- “During the pendency of this interlocutory application the sole respondent is restrained from making any construction over the suit land and also from changing the nature and character thereof.” 18. Now the plaintiff-respondent-appellant-petitioner has filed the instant MJC for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the sole defendant ( O.P.No.1) and the then A.S.I. of Mohammadpur Police Station, Gopalganj (O.P.No.2) and for punishing them on two grounds, namely (i) that opposite party no.1 in collusion with opposite party no.2 violated the said order of this Court dated 11.05.2007 by forcefully making constructions over the suit land and changing its nature and character knowing full well about the said order of this Court and (ii) that opposite party no.2 at the instance of opposite party no.1 used derogatory words against the High Court when its order dated 11.05.2007 was shown to them by the petitioner when they were intending to make constructions violating the said order. 19. So far the second ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, it is based on paragraph 18 of the MJC which reads as follows:- “18. That petitioner personally met respondent no.1 and showed the order dated 11.5.2007 of this Hon’ble Court and requested him not to make any further construction over the disputed land. But respondent no.1 snatched copy of the order from mother of appellants and torn in pieces and shouted that he did not care or obey any order till completion of the construction work and abused the judiciary. Of this appellant’s mother approached local Mahamadpur Police Station for her help and compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. Where she met to respondent no.2 who was also not ready to hear her when she informed about the High Court’s order then he said that High Court is mere a stamp. Of this appellant’s mother approached local Mahamadpur Police Station for her help and compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. Where she met to respondent no.2 who was also not ready to hear her when she informed about the High Court’s order then he said that High Court is mere a stamp. Actually he is High Court and he has to see, maintain and perform the role of High Court among the general public and without his wishes nothing can be done in the locality and through his police men he kicked out the appellant’s mother.” 20. However, when the matter was sent to the District Judge, Gopalganj by the order of this Court dated 15.12.2010 an inquiry was held by the said District Judge in which the petitioner deposed as A.W.1, but did not support the aforesaid allegation rather in his deposition he denied that either of the opposite parties had used any derogatory words against the Court. The only other witness of the petitioner, namely A.W.2 also did not support the allegation, although he produced relevant petitions, letters, orders of the authority as well as a photo of the disputed land dated 28.5.2007 before the enquiry officer. 21. On the other hand, two witnesses deposed on behalf of the opposite parties, out of whom O.P.W.1 Kamal Sharma is opposite party no.1 in this case and O.P.W.2 Ram Awatar Sharma is his other witness, but they denied the said allegation against the opposite parties although they did not file any documentary evidence. However, in his inquiry report dated 10.5.2011, the learned District Judge stated the aforesaid facts, but did not give any finding on this issue clearly because of the specific denial by the opposite parties and the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner in that regard. In the said circumstances, this allegation raised by the petitioner is not found proved and hence on this ground no step can be legally taken against the opposite parties. 22. So far the first ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, it has been bifurcated by the District Judge in three points, namely, (a) whether the order of this Court has been violated knowingly, (b) when the building had been completed by opposite party no.1 and (c) whether there was any collusion between opposite parties nos.1 and 2. 23. 22. So far the first ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, it has been bifurcated by the District Judge in three points, namely, (a) whether the order of this Court has been violated knowingly, (b) when the building had been completed by opposite party no.1 and (c) whether there was any collusion between opposite parties nos.1 and 2. 23. With respect to point no.1 regarding opposite parties knowingly violating the order of this Court dated 11.05.2007 passed in S.A.No.62 of 2007, both the witnesses of petitioner, namely A.W.1 and A.W.2 fully supported her claim raised in the MJC petition. It is not disputed by the opposite parties that the petitioner had filed application dated 14.05.2007 (Ext.-4) in Execution Case No.04 of 2005 stating in detail about the order of injunction dated 11.5.2007 passed by this Court in S.A. No.62 of 2007. It has to be noted in this regard that the said application dated 14.05.2007 had been filed by the petitioner in reply to the application of opposite party no.1 dated 11.5.2007 filed in the said Execution Case No.04 of 2005 for dismissing it in view of judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which was under challenge in S.A.No.62 of 2007. The said application dated 14.05.2007 was filed by the petitioner in the execution case only after serving a copy thereof upon learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 24. It is also not in dispute that Circle Officer, Sidhwalia reportedly sent letters bearing letter No.251 dated 18.5.2007 (Ext.-5) and letter no.256 dated 19.5.2007 (Ext.-6) asking opposite party no.2 to stop constructions and for submitting explanation specifically mentioning the said order of this Court dated 11.05.2007 (Ext.-5). 25. Apart from the aforesaid facts which are clear from the record, the learned District Judge considered the said aspect in his report dated 10.05.2011 in detail, including the evidence of the parties and the materials on record and found them to corroborate the claim of the petitioner that respondent (opposite party no.1) had been served notice of injunction order for not making any construction or changing the feature of the disputed land. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the opposite parties had got knowledge of the order of injunction passed by this Court on 11.05.2007 in S.A. No.62 of 2007 latest by 14.05.2007. 26. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the opposite parties had got knowledge of the order of injunction passed by this Court on 11.05.2007 in S.A. No.62 of 2007 latest by 14.05.2007. 26. With respect to point no.2 regarding date of completion of the building by opposite party no.1 in violation of order of this Court dated 11.05.2007 in S.A. No.62 of 2007, both the witnesses of the petitioner fully supported her claim and deposed that when defendant- O.P.no.1 came to know about the said order of injunction, he took opposite party no.2 in his collusion and continued his construction work over the disputed land and completed it in haste-post-haste manner after 14.5.2007. The witnesses of petitioner namely A.W.1 and A.W.2 further deposed that when the construction work was continued even after the order of this Court in spite of petitioner’s objection she went to the police station, but opposite party no.2 did not take any step, rather facilitated the illegal construction which was being made by the defendant-opposite party no.1, whereafter the petitioner was constrained to move the Circle Officer who wrote letters dated 18.05.2007 and 19.05.2007 to opposite party no.2, but in spite of that opposite parties completed the constructions. 27. On the other hand, the specific claim of defendant-opposite party is that he had completed the construction before 24.4.2007, but in his deposition as O.P.W.1 he stated that his house was completed 10 years earlier, whereas his other witness O.P.W.2 deposed that the house had already been completed sometime in the year 2001, although it was not the pleading of defendant-opposite party no.1. However, the District Judge, Gopalganj made an on the spot inspection on 05.05.2011 which is also supported by photograph attached to his report dated 10.05.2011 and found that on the land in question there was a recently constructed double storeyed building complete from all the sides, the condition of which showed that it was a recent construction which has not faced many rainy seasons. He also found that there was an old one storeyed construction with asbestos tiles on the said land which was being used as kitchen and for other house hold works. 28. He also found that there was an old one storeyed construction with asbestos tiles on the said land which was being used as kitchen and for other house hold works. 28. It has to be noted that title suit had been filed by the petitioner in 2002 which had been decreed in 2005 and defendant’s title appeal of 2005 was decided in 2007 which is under challenge in Second Appeal No.62 of 2007, but nowhere any double storeyed building was mentioned. The report of the Survey Knowing Commissioner in the title suit filed by both the parties also showed that there was no mention therein with regard to the existence of any double storeyed building rather the two Pleader Commissioners appointed by the trial Court had found only temporary single storeyed structure on the land in question. Hence, there is no question of existence of any double storeyed building on the land in question since 2001 as deposed by the witnesses of O.P. no.1. 29. Furthermore, even in the judgment of the appellate court dated 24.3.2007 passed in T.A.No.58 of 2005, there is no mention of any double storeyed building or any construction on the land in question and hence the construction of the big double storeyed building complete from all side by 24.04.2007, i.e. within one month of the said judgment, by opposite party no.1 is absolutely not possible. Furthermore, no evidence at all has been produced on behalf of the opposite parties to show that the building was completed before 24.4.2007 or before 14.5.2007 when the application was filed by the petitioner in the execution case, or even before 19.05.2007 when the Circle Officer had sent letters to O.P.no.2. 30. Apart from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the materials on record also show that even Circle Officer Sidwalia considering the matter had asked opposite party no.2 to stop the construction and submit his report. All these facts and materials corroborate the statement and case of the petitioner and it was specifically found by the District Judge in his report dated 10.05.2011 that although construction was going on even prior to 14.5.2007 to 18.5.2007, but it continued thereafter until the building was completed in spite of opposite parties having full knowledge and information of the order of this Court dated 11.5.2007 passed in S.A.No.62 of 2007. 31. 31. This finding of the District Judge is based on specific pleadings and materials produced on behalf of the parties and after full consideration thereof and hence this Court does not find any error therein. The District Judge could not fix a date on which the building was completed as it was very difficult especially when the defendant/opposite party no.1, who had made constructions, did not produce any document or evidence in that regard nor gave any date with respect thereto. However, the pleading and evidence of the parties clearly showed that construction was going on even after 18th and 19th of May, 2007 and hence without fixing a date of completion it can be safely held that the building was completed sometimes after 18th of May, 2007. 32. With respect to point no.3 regarding collusion between opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 for violating the order of this court dated 11.05.2007 in S.A. no.62 of 2007 both the witnesses of the petitioner fully supported her claim and deposed that on the date in question when opposite party no.1 started Dhalai work she went to the police station in question where opposite party no.2 was posted and again produced the aforesaid order of this Court dated 11.05.2007, but she was stopped at the Thana from 10.00 a. m. to 3.00 p.m., whereafter she went to the Circle Officer which took further 2 to 3 hours. Finally, the Circle Officer sent letter to opposite party no.2 to get the construction stopped in view of the order of this Court, but opposite party no.2 did not do anything although the land in question is on the High-way easily approachable form Thana. 33. Furthermore, the said specific statements were not denied by opposite party no.2 who although appeared before the District Judge after notice, but did not produce any evidence to disprove the claim of the petitioner, nor even contested before the District Judge. Dhalai work in a building is done in a single day using all resources available, but the petitioner and her nephew were stopped at the Thana by opposite party no.2 for the whole day and only on the evening they were left and Chowkidar was sent when the Dhalai work was completed. Dhalai work in a building is done in a single day using all resources available, but the petitioner and her nephew were stopped at the Thana by opposite party no.2 for the whole day and only on the evening they were left and Chowkidar was sent when the Dhalai work was completed. These facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record sufficiently proved that there was collusion between opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 with respect to construction of the house violating the specific orders of this Court dated 11.05.2007 although they had full knowledge and information about the same. 34. In the said circumstances, the District Judge had rightly held that the order of this Court dated 11.05.2007 passed in S.A.No.62 of 2007 had been violated willfully, knowingly and intentionally and construction of building was continued and was completed much after the knowledge of the said order by collusion between opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2. 35. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, willful disobedience by opposite party no.1 and 2 of the clear injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2007 having been fully proved, both the opposite parties are held to be liable as such and considering the seriousness of the matter in context of the claim of the parties and its effect on the proceeding pending in the court of law as well as the disdain with which the opposite parties have treated the clear and specific order of this court, both the opposite parties are hereby ordered to be detained in civil prison for a term of three months and the double storeyed building with other constructions over the land in question measuring 14 ¾ dhurs of Plot no.753 under khata no.270 situated in village Karasghat, P.S. Mohammadpur, District Gopalganj in possession of opposite party no.1 is hereby directed to be attached. The said attachment shall remain in force for one year from the date of attachment and if thereafter also the disobedience by O.P. no.1 continues, the aforesaid attached property shall be sold and out of the proceeds of sale, the Court will award appropriate compensation to the affected party, namely the petitioner, and the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to the party found entitled thereto by this court while deciding S.A. No.62 of 2007 out of which this MJC case has arisen. 36. 36. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the matter is sent to the District Judge, Gopalganj for the execution of the said order of this Court and he may transfer it to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction for taking immediate steps for execution in that regard in accordance with the provisions of law.