Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioner appellant has prayed for punishing the non-petitioners for disobedience of the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1468/2004, whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo and further directed that they shall not alter the position of the land in dispute nor they will sell or enter into agreement to sale of the property till pendency of the suit. In the order, further, it is directed that the trial Court will decide the suit expeditiously.
2. At the threshold, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, appearing on behalf of those contemnors who are not party in the suit submits that no disobedience has been made by them of the order passed by this Court and they are in possession or their land as per the sale-deed executed in their favour, therefore, those contemnors who were not impleaded in the suit cannot be held responsible for disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for contemnors No. I to 4 submits that no disobedience had been made by the non-petitioners for which contempt proceedings may be initiated against them, therefore, this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court that after passing order dated 1.8.2005 in the appeal for maintaining status quo and not altering position of the land every person who alters the position of the land in question is liable to be punished because as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act if litigation is going on then everybody is under obligation to obey the orders passed by the Court, therefore, the non-petitioners are liable to be punished.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention of the Court towards the fact that for the purpose of ascertaining correct position this Court passed order for appointment of Commissioner but the first Commissioner expressed his inability to inspect the site and, thereafter, another Advocate was appointed Commissioner but the petitioner is having grievance with regard to report given by the Commissioner and he has filed objection for that.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleadings of the case. As per pleadings, petitioner Tejaram and his father purchased agricultural land situated in Khasra No. 375 of Balotra (District Barmer). Out of 55 bigha, 28 bigha land was purchased by petitioner vide registered sale-deed on 12.4.1983 and 24.11.1983 from Hazri-Ram and Sanwal Ram. As per contention of the petitioner, possession was also handed over to them.
7. As per pleadings, on 24.1.1991, agreement to sale was made with Chhota Ram non-petitioner-defendant by the petitioner. Possession of that land was also handed over to him and for the purpose of declaration of right, damages and perpetual injunction for restraining them from interfering in enjoyment of the property a suit was filed. In the suit, reply was filed and interim order was passed by the trial Court on 23.7.1997 upon the interim injunction application; and on 7.1.1998, temporary injunction application was allowed and trial Court passed interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo. The plaintiff also prayed for other relief for staying criminal proceedings and further to grant mandatory injunction over interfering in or trespassing over the plaintiffs possession which was declined by the trial Court.
8. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred before this Court and said appeal was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 162/1998 and, in the said appeal, order was passed on 23.1.2002 whereby matter was remanded for deciding the temporary injunction application afresh. In pursuance of the said order, trial Court dismissed the temporary injunction application and thereafter, again, against the dismissal order S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1468/2004 was filed which was decided on 1.8.2005, whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo.
9. In this contempt petition, the petitioner has raised so many disputed question with regard to his possession over the land and raised grievance that land in question was sold vide agreement to so many persons and they are raising construction, therefore, even if they are not party in the civil appeal they are liable to be punished because they are altering the position of the land.
10. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that first of all out of two appellants. one plaintiff has preferred this contempt petition. Further, his main grievance is that those persons who are not party in the suit are flouting the orders passed by this Court. In my opinion, the proceedings under Contempt of Court Act has serious consequences, therefore, it is to be seen whether the alleged contemnors have wilfully breached the orders passed by the Court or not.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ittedly, the main allegation of petitioner Teja Ram is that disobedience had been made by those contemnors who were not party before the Court, therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that there is wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court because they were not party before the civil Court or before this Court. Therefore, on the basis of disputed question of fact, I am not satisfied to take any action in this contempt petition. Hence, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notices stand discharged. Petition dismissed.