JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the proceedings against the respondents for having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 27.08.2024. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the case are that the some of the residents of Village Sharli had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. On 29.06.2024, a status quo order was passed by the trial Court in the aforesaid suit. The same had been granted till the next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2024. As on 29.06.2024, the status of work is depicted in Annexure R-3/A atpage 69 of the paper book. Thereafter, the work had been stopped. 4. Being aggrieved of the status quo order dated 29.06.2024, the present respondent No.3 had preferred a CMPMO No.402 of 2024 against the aforesaid interim order. The said petition was withdrawn with liberty reserved in accordance with law on 23.07.2024. Thereafter, an appropriate appeal against the interim order dated 29.06.2024 was filed before the learned Additional District Judge on 29.07.2024. The same came to be allowed on 09.08.2024 and immediately thereafter work on the site was resumed. 5. The order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge was challenged by the present petitioners by preferring CMPMO No.500 of 2024, in the case at hand. On 27.08.2024, an interim order was passed by this Court, whereby order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, was stayed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that from a perusal of order dated 27.08.2024, it is evident that the respondents, in the case at hand, were aware of the stay of the operation and execution of the order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Additional District Judge. Despite the same, it is alleged that construction was carried on by the present respondents. In order to demonstrate the same, photographs (Annexure C-2) have been placed on record. Other than the aforesaid, a Rapat Rojnamcha dated 28.08.2024, recorded at 9:47 PM has been placed on record. 7. Per contra, respondents have filed their replies, at the very outset unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered by the respondents. In order to demonstrate the same, photographs (Annexure C-2) have been placed on record. Other than the aforesaid, a Rapat Rojnamcha dated 28.08.2024, recorded at 9:47 PM has been placed on record. 7. Per contra, respondents have filed their replies, at the very outset unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered by the respondents. Respondent No.3 is the Contractor, who was executing the work. In his reply, he has submitted that on 27.08.2024 on account of demise of a close relative (grandmother) at Solan, he was compelled to leave the construction site. Subsequent thereto, the body of the deceased was brought to his native Village Bali Koti for performing the last rites. The same were conducted on 28.08.2024. In order to demonstrate the aforesaid, death certificate of his grandmother has been placed on record to show that the last rites of the grandmother of respondent No.3 were performed at Bali Koti. 8. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted that on 27.08.2024 in the absence of respondent No.3, at the construction site, all preparations for installing the concrete slab and shuttering had been done. Besides, material required for the scheduled installation of the concrete slab had been collected. The scaffolding had been installed and the cement gravel mixture was ready to be mixed. 9. In the early morning of 28.08.2024, the cement, sand, and gravel mixture for the concrete slab was mixed and put in place. The same post mixing could not have been stored. The photographs in this respect depicting the ground work done for installation of the concrete slab and the executing/putting in place the slab is evident from the photographs appended along with reply filed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R3-D. 10. Insofar as respondent No.1 is concerned, suffice it to state that the said replying-respondent has no role in the construction work, rather the work of construction is being done by the Executive Engineer (Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Development HP), to whom the order had been conveyed on 28.08.2024. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 12. Insofar as private respondent is concerned, the version of not being there at the spot on 27/28.08.2024 on account of the demise of his grandmother appears to be plausible, duly supported by documents on record. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 12. Insofar as private respondent is concerned, the version of not being there at the spot on 27/28.08.2024 on account of the demise of his grandmother appears to be plausible, duly supported by documents on record. The execution of work on 27/28.08.2024 as explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the private-respondent appears to be a genuine explanation. Insofar a respondent No.1 is concerned, he has no role in the alleged infraction as he has no role to play in the execution of the work. Rather he had brought the stay order to the notice of the Executive Engineer (Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Development HP) on 28.08.2024. 13. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) defines “civil contempt” to mean ‘willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court…’. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in the other criminal cases. Alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. Therefore, the court must act with as great circumspection as possible. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct(disobedience is wilful and intentional) not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. 14. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemnor is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him. In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. In this respect reference can be made to case reported as Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2021) 15 SCC 338 , at page 378. 15. In the main case, Gram Panchayat Sharli has been served through the Secretary concerned. Hence, respondent No.2 in the present petition i.e. the concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan could not have been aware of the order dated 27.08.2024. Unaware of any such order, if the alleged contemnor proceeded with the construction, can it be said that the alleged contemnor was guilty of committing contempt of the court’s order? In a similar situation the apex court in Suresh v. Imran Khan, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 306 answered in the negative for the following obvious reasons. 16. The proceedings in contempt are in the nature of quasi- criminal proceedings and it must be shown that the litigant in defiance or disobedience of the court’s order proceeded to do any act which was in violation thereof. Unless the litigant is aware of a prohibitory order made against him by the court there can be no desire or intention on his part to flout the court’s order. Therefore, unless it is shown that the litigant was made aware of the order served on his lawyer it may not be possible to hold that despite the knowledge of the order, he willfully decided to commit a breach of the order by acting contrary thereto. Proceedings in the nature of contempt being quasi-criminal it must be shown that the litigant was aware of the prohibitory order issued by the court and notwithstanding the same in breach thereof or in total disregard thereof he proceeded to continue with the construction. It being not disputed that there was no evidence to show that the lawyer to whom the prohibitory order was given had communicated that order in any manner whatsoever to the litigant, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that by continuing with the construction the litigant intended to commit a breach of the order or showed disrespect for the order. In that view of the matter if the High Court was disinclined to punish the litigant for contempt, be that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, we see no reason why we should interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. 17. In the present case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order dated 27-08-24 passed by this Court. Therefore, the present, petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.