Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 93 (UTT)

HARENDRA SINGH KWEERA v. NANDA BALLABH PANT

2013-03-04

V.K.Bist

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for punishing the opposite party for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order-dated 22.05.2007 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.68 of 2004 “State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sri Khushal Singh & others”. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today. Same is taken on record. 4. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in which injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and the defendants, namely, the State Government through Collector, Public Works Department, Temporary Division, Bhowali and one Puran Singh Rautela, contractor were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. They were also restrained from raising illegal construction over the land in question. First appeal as well as second appeal filed by the defendants were dismissed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 09.02.2013, when the petitioner started his construction work over the land in question, the opposite party came to the spot and restrained the petitioner from construction work over his land. In paragraph no.9 of the Contempt Petition, the petitioner has written that despite of the sufficient service/sufficient knowledge of the order passed by this Court and inspite of the repeated request of the petitioner, the opposite party did not comply the order of this Court and prevented the petitioner from doing construction work over his own land. In paragraph no.9 of the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has shown all the judgments passed by different Courts including the High Court to the opposite party and requested him not to restrain the petitioner from constructing the residential accommodation over his property. But, the opposite party has restrained the petitioner from construction over his property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the clear-cut order passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the higher Courts, the opposite party is restraining the petitioner from constructing the residential accommodation over his land. He submitted that this act of the respondent is clear-cut contempt of the Court’s order. 7. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the papers available on record. 8. He submitted that this act of the respondent is clear-cut contempt of the Court’s order. 7. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the papers available on record. 8. From the perusal of judgment passed by the trial Court, it reveals that the trial Court directed the defendants, namely, the State Government through Collector, Public Works Department, Temporary Division, Bhowali and one Puran Singh Rautela, contractor not to make construction over the land in dispute. The petitioner has not shown any documentary evidence which could prove that the Court’s order was served upon the opposite party. It is not mentioned by the petitioner that any step was taken by the petitioner, as provided under Order 39 Rule 2 of C.P.C., and whether the opposite party was served sufficiently after the decree attained its finality. Moreover, different cause of action has arisen. Since there is no proof of sufficient service, the contempt petition is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.