Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 315 (JK)

S. K. Puri v. Vinod Bhalla

2016-06-04

MOHD.YAQOOB MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, J. 1. Maintainability of the contempt proceedings is questioned by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that with the disposal of the main revision petition, the MP filed alongside on consideration of which interim order of status quo had been granted stand disposed of. Therefore, it is impermissible to continue with the contempt proceedings. 2. Regarding a strip of land measuring 440 Sq. ft. adjoining Raja Work Shop Housing Colony Shastri Nagar Jammu, allotment order was issued in favour of the respondent by the Housing Board on 24.03.1994. In pursuance whereof lease deed was executed and registered by Sub Registrar Jammu on 04.04.1994 but lease deed stands cancelled by the Board w.e.f. 18.05.1994. 3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the lease deed, the respondent filed suit for prohibitory injunction before the Court of Ld. Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Jammu. An interim relief in favour of the petitioner was granted by the trial court which order was challenged by medium of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. The Appellate court in its 1st order observed that base for suit was lease deed dated 04.04.1994, same stands cancelled, the cancellation was not challenged; second, the respondent was never put in possession of the said strip of land, then disposed of the appeal observing that the possession of the respondent was illegal. The Board had proceeded against him under Eviction of Unauthorised Act, 1988. Finally order of the trial court dated 23.08.1994 has been set-aside. The Board had been directed not to transfer the property covered by the lease deed during the pendency of the suit with further clarification that same shall not be construed to mean that any construction illegally raised is also to be protected. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the appellate court, the respondent filed civil revision No. 31/1995 alongside filed an application for grant of interim relief. Vide order dated 29.03.1995, operation of the order dated 11.01.1995 passed by the appellate court District Judge Jammu was stayed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 6. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the appellate court, the respondent filed civil revision No. 31/1995 alongside filed an application for grant of interim relief. Vide order dated 29.03.1995, operation of the order dated 11.01.1995 passed by the appellate court District Judge Jammu was stayed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 6. Petitioner herein filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for wilfully flouting the said order dated 29.03.1995 by projecting that the respondent has raised construction on the land in question and has completed the structure which fact shall be substantiated by the report of the Khilafwarzi Officer dated 24.11.1995 and the report lodged with police station concerned on 24.11.1995. 7. The respondent in his objections has stated that he raised the construction when interim directions were granted in his favour by the court of Ld. Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu, then has categorically clarified that no fresh construction has been raised by the petitioner during the period w.e.f. from 23.08.1994 to 15.09.1994 which is perfectly valid. 8. The Revision Petition No. 31/1995, stands dismissed vide detailed order dated 22.11.2014. The instant contempt petition was directed to be de-linked and listed separately, as such it remained pending. 9. After the disposal of the revision petition, now the counsel for the respondent has raised an objection vis-a-vis maintainability of the contempt proceedings. According to him, the order of status quo which was granted no more survives as the revision petition stands dismissed. When it is so, the contempt proceedings are required to be closed. In support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, 2012 (4) SCC 307 and State of J&K vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and Others, 1992 (4) SCC 167 . With respects, it can be safely said that said judgments will not help the respondent. 10. Respondent is alleged to have raised construction in violation to the interim direction dated 29.03.1995 as was passed in Civil Revision No. 31/1995. With the disposal of the revision petition, the contempt proceedings cannot be closed because alleged violation of the order dated 29.03.1995 which was in operation during the pendency of the revision petition was to be strictly respected and implemented. With the disposal of the revision petition, the contempt proceedings cannot be closed because alleged violation of the order dated 29.03.1995 which was in operation during the pendency of the revision petition was to be strictly respected and implemented. In case after evidence it is established that the respondent in violation to the said order has raised construction, then he has to be dealt with accordingly. 11. If the submission of the learned counsel is accepted to the effect that with the disposal of the revision petition, for violation of interim direction, contempt proceedings cannot be maintained then the very object of passing any interim direction shall be useless and then everyone will disobey the interim direction with impunity. 12. When any interim direction is passed, it has to be respected. Any violation of such order cannot be ignored. 13. A clear-cut direction providing to maintain status quo if proved to be violated entails serious consequences. 14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the contempt proceedings are not maintainable for the reasons stated here in above is rejected. 15. The contempt petition for the stated reasons is maintainable. Same be listed for further proceedings in the week commencing 27.06.2016 in a regular cause list.