Ch. Balbir Singh vs Baljinder Singh and others

P.D. Sharma, J.—Ch. Balbir Singh, President, D.A.V. College, Hoshiarpur Society, hereinafter referred to as the Society has filed this petition u/s 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against Shri Baljindar Singh, District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, and 15 others. A few facts relevant for the disposal thereof may be noticed. The Society on 13th August, 1963 instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, against the Managing Committee of Sarvdayanand Anglo Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Bassi Kalan, through Jagan Nath respondent No.5 for a declaration that the Society was the owner and in possession of the management of the S(sic) vdayanand Anglo Sanskrit Higher Secondry School, Bassi Kalan, and that the defendants had nothing to do wish the said School and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the Society''s possession of the management of the School. The suit was decreed on 22nd May, 1964. The petitioner on 26th May, 1964 addressed a tetter to the District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. respondent No. 1 to the effect that the Society in pursuance of the decree granted in its favour by the Civil Court would be sending its teachers and staff to the School on the following day and that necessary arrangements may be made to facilitate the decree-holder in obtaining possession over the management in a peaceful and legal manner. He also wrote that since there was an imminent danger of breach of peace that the judgment-debtor may cause damage and misappropriate the valuable property of the School, some responsible officer may be deputed to get the list of the property prepared in his presence. The petitioner as already intimated by him to the District Magistrate went to the School premises at 10 A. M. on 27th May, 19.S4, to take possession of the Management of the School It is alleged that the Magistrate, II Class, Hoshiarpur, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Hoshiarpur, respondents 2 to 4 obstructed the petitioner from getting into the School and encouraged the other respondents Nos. 5 to 16, members of the Managing Committee to remain in possession of the management of the School against the terms of the decree granted in favour of the Society. The petitioner and his associates, it appears, wanted to forcibly enter the School when the police lathi-charged them injuring a few of them. The petitioner urged that respondents Nos. 5 to 16, aided and abetted by respondents 1 to 4 obstructed the Society from taking lawful action in accordance with the decree passed by a competent civil Court and thus committed contempt of the Court.

The District Magistrate, respondent No. 1, in his written statement explained that as the petitioner''s application addressed to him interalia mentioned an apprehension of breach of peace and damage and mis-appropriation of the property of the School, the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn endorsed it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3 with the direction that police would be responsible for the maintenance of law and order, public peace and tranquility. Another application on the same day was also received by him from Gian Chand, Ram Labhaya, and others who apprehended serious breach of peace at the hand of the petitioner and his companions who were stated to be designing to take forcible possession of the School. The Station House Officer, Police, Station Saddar, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 4 submitted his report on this application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who forwarded the same to the District Magistrate with a request that a Magistrate may be deputed as breach of peace was apprehended. It was in these circumstances that the District Magistrate directed the Magistrate II Class, Hoshiarpur respondent No. 2 to maintain law and order. The other respondents also pleaded in similar terms.

The Learned Counsel for the respondents maintained that the petitioner and his associates could not have sought execution of the decree passed in favour of the Society by a Civil Court in the a manner proposed by them to the District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 1. The decree should have been executed through the executing Court according to the provisions made in Order 21 rule 32, Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the execution of the decrees for specific performance, for restitution of conjugal rights or for injunction. The petitioner himself wrote to respondent No. 1 that he along with others would go to the school premises on 27th May, 1964, to obtain possession of the management of the School and that in the course he apprehended some damage to the property etc. Gam Chand, Ram Labhaya and others from the opposite side had also approached the District Magistrate for proper arrangement as they apprehended breach of the peace at the hands of the petitioner and his companions who were designing to take forcible possession of the School. Respondent No. 1 in these circumstances was justified in deputing respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to the spot with a direction that law and order should be maintained. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 took certain steps to maintain law and order and in doing so did not disobey the decree of the civil Court passed in favour of the Society. The decree-holder should have sought its execution through a civil Court according to the procedure laid down in Order 21 to 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner in seeking execution of the decree in a manner not warranted by law cannot now with any justification urge that the respondents committed contempt of Court. Respondents 1 to 4 did nothing but discharged their lawful durties Respondents Nos. 5 to 16 for their conduct on the day the petitioner and his associates visited the School premises after the passing of the decree were answerable to the executing Court. None of the respondents could be said to have committed contempt of Court.

The petition fails and is dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.