Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 470 (HP)

Parkash Singh v. Satish Kumar

2025-03-24

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) Heard. 2. Aggrieved against order dated 05.07.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 225-6 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 77-1 of 2020, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been dismissed, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which is pending adjudication on the files of learned Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. as Civil Suit No. 77-1 of 2020. Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are defendants No. 7 and 8 in the suit. Petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith suit for interim injunction against the defendants including respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. On 24.06.2020, an interim order was passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. 4. Plaintiff complained of violation of interim order dated 24.06.2020 by the defendants. He filed two separate applications before learned Trial Court, one under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for local inspection and another under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for police assistance. On the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Local Commissioner was appointed by learned Trial Court, who inspected the spot on 08.07.2020 and submitted his report whereby he reported new construction having been carried by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the form of twenty numbers of pillars and digging of pits on the suit land. 5. The application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for police assistance was thereafter withdrawn for the reason that after the inspection of spot by Local Commissioner, the work had been stopped by respondents on the spot. The plaintiff filed a separate application for withdrawal of application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff filed a separate application for withdrawal of application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be relevant to extract paragraph-4 of the said application as under:- “4 That after the report of the L.C. the work has been stopped by the respondents on the spot and in case the police execute the order thereafter if the work is restarted by the respondents then the police may refuse to implement the same because as usual the police responds that they had only the order to go one time on the spot and the purpose of passing the order may frustrate.” 6. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, before learned Trial Court on 23.06.2021, with a prayer to refer the matter to this Court as the respondents therein were alleged to have committed civil contempt by disobeying order dated 24.06.2020, passed by learned Trial Court. Evidently, learned Trial Court did not seek any response to the said application from respondents and proceeded to dismiss the same vide impugned order. 7. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, primarily on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted while withdrawing application for police help that the respondents had stopped violating order and thereafter no further disobedience was complained to the Court by the petitioner. Learned Trial Court further held that no particular date or time of disobedience allegedly made by defendants was mentioned in the application. It was also observed that if at the later stage of the suit it was found that any construction had been raised in disobedience of Court’s order, the same could be dealt with under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. On perusal of record it is found that in the application filed by plaintiff under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act it was clearly spelt out that the Local Commissioner had visited the spot and had found fresh construction on the suit land having been raised by respondents. There was a clear allegation that the respondents were violating the interim order passed by the Court on 24.06.2020. Further, while withdrawing the application for police help, the plaintiff had clearly mentioned that after visit of Local Commissioner respondents had stopped violating order dated 24.06.2020. There was a clear allegation that the respondents were violating the interim order passed by the Court on 24.06.2020. Further, while withdrawing the application for police help, the plaintiff had clearly mentioned that after visit of Local Commissioner respondents had stopped violating order dated 24.06.2020. Thus, it was implied that the allegation in the application was of the period in between 24.06.2020 to 08.07.2020. The reason, thus, assigned by learned Trial Court that no date of disobedience was mentioned in the application is clearly against to the record. 9. The application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was filed by the plaintiff on 24.06.2021 i.e. exactly within one year of the date of passing of interim order. Thus, though, the application has not been dismissed as being time barred, yet even such ground cannot be assumed to have weighed with learned trial court for making a mention about absence of specific dates of violation in the application. 10. The withdrawal of application for police help by the petitioner could not by itself provide a ground to dismiss the application for taking action under Contempt of Courts Act. Petitioner had withdrawn the application for police help by submitting specific reasons, as reproduced above. The withdrawal of said application by plaintiff could not be construed as a waiver of right to proceed against respondents with the allegation of disobedience of Court order. 11. Interestingly on one hand, learned Trial Court without holding any inquiry proceeded to reject the contention raised by the petitioner, on the other it kept the doors open for passing of any subsequent order without appreciating that once the averments made in the application were discarded, the plaintiff might face impediment to raise the same issue again. 12. In light of above discussion, I find this to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the failure of learned Trial Court to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law is clearly made out. 13 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 12. In light of above discussion, I find this to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the failure of learned Trial Court to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law is clearly made out. 13 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.07.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 225-6 of 20221 in Civil Suit No. 77-1 of 2020, is set aside, with direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the application of the plaintiff under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act afresh strictly in accordance with law. 14. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.