Bhalla vs Ram Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of a Single Judge of this Court convicting the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The facts :

Nihala and others have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Singh and others from interfering in their peaceful possession. Along with the suit, an application under JUDGMENT 39, Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and the same came up for hearing before the trial Judge, Kaithal, on 30.4.1983 and the following other was passed :

"Present : Shri R.K. Gaur, Advocate for the plaintiffs.

Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on P.F. copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 17.5.1983. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs/applicants have filed an application under JUDGMENT 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for issue of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint during the pendency of the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is based on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land in capacity as lessees under defendant No. 10, vide registered lease deed dated 3.4.1972 for a term of 15 years running from khari 19.83. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit and copies of jamabandi for the year 198081. Certified copy of the decree sheet in Civil Suit No. 1472 of the 1972 dated 1411.1972 has also been produced whereby the lease hold rights were transferred in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants No. 5 to 9 and others. Now the defendants No. 1 to 4 are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are hereby restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaintiff till 17.5.1983, plaintiffs to comply under JUDGMENT 39 Rule 3 C.P.C.".

Pritam Singh s/o Dongar filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against appellants Bhalla, Ram Kala, Teka, Ram Pal sons of Shistu, Inder Singh s/o Ram Pal, Chincha s/o Jaggi, Chandgi s/o Momam and Dhari s/o Sakha Ram (appellants No. 1 to 8). Along with the suit, an application under JUDGMENT 39, Rules and 1 and 2 was also filed, and the same came up for hearing before SUb Judge Ist Class, Kaithal, on 7.5.1983 and the following order was passed :

"Suit presented today. It be checked and registered. Notice of the suit as well as application be given to the defendants on P.F. Copy of plaint and summons in duplicate for 25.5.1983.

Simultaneously, the plaintiff/applications has filed an application under JUDGMENT 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for issue of temporary injection. The suit of the plaintiff''s based on the ground that hand his brother Ram Singh had been and are cultivating the land as lessees under defendant No. 1 for the last more than 20 years and that there is no order of ejectment or dispossessing from any competent authority. Now the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants many a time to desist themselves from their illegal activities. The assertion of the plaintiffs is supported by an affidavit, copy of Khasra girdawaries and other documents on record. Thus, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally or to cut the harvest or to remove the wheat crop from the land in dispute till further orders. Plaintiffs to comply under JUDGMENT 39, Rule 3 C.P.C."

Pritam Singh and others moved this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants for infringing the interim order dated 7.5.1983. The appellants have also moved the trial Judge for similar type of relief which was granted to them on April 30, 1983., The respondents for the reasons undisclosed did not move the trial Judge for taking action against the appellants under JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code''). If a person is aggrieved against infringement of any order passed under JUDGMENT 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, he can move the Court for initiating action under JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code. JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code is exhaustive. The Court on its being satisfied that the order of injunction was disobeyed by the other party, could either attach the property of the person concerned or direct him that he be detained in Civil Prison. There are alternative punishments provided under JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code. The counsel for the respondents could not give any justification for the invoking the jurisdiction of trial Court by moving a petition under JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code, for disobeying the injunction order issued under JUDGMENT 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Apart from this, the appellants had moved the Civil Court and had got a restraint order against the respondents from interfering in their possession. Thus, both the parties were alleging that they were in possession and in this situation, the interest of justice required that aggrieved party would could have taken resort under the provisions of JUDGMENT 39, Rule 2A of the Code. The respondents were not justified in moving this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants. We are satisfied that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the initiation of the contempt proceedings were wholly unjustified. Resultantly, the conviction cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated, above, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside.