Charanjit Singh vs Gurtej Singh

N.K. Sodhi, J.—Sukhminder Singh respondent 4 filed civil suit 556 against Charanjit Singh petitioner and his brother Sarbjit Singh on 23.7.1993 for a permanent injunction seeking to restrain them from encroaching upon a public street and from interfering with its use as a street. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed which came up for hearing before Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda on 23.7.1993 and the defendants in the suit were restrained from encroaching upon any portion of the disputed street. Notice in this suit was issued to the defendants for 23.8.1993. On this day the defendants including the petitioner herein appeared before the trial Court and sought time for filing written statement. The case was adjourned and the stay order was allowed to continue till further orders. Thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondents 1 to 5 on 29.8.1993 seeking to restrain them from demolishing any part of the wall on the western side of the house belonging to the plaintiff and without disclosing about the earlier civil suit 556 and the order passed therein obtained an ex parte order of status quo. This suit came up for hearing before another Court. Sarabjit Singh brother of the petitioner and a cosharer also filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 50 of 1948 before the Additional Director Consolidation stating that during the consolidation proceedings khasra No. 906 had been alloted to him and thereafter he constructed a house on it and since his house extended on a part of khasra No. 914 which was a public street, the same be allotted to him. On this application the Additional Director allotted a portion of khasra No. 914 to Sarabjit Singh and the petitioner. This order of the Additional Director has been challenged in two writ petitions 14699 and 17982 of 1994 in which operation of the impugned order has been stayed.

Petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the respondents had violated the order of status quo dated 29.8.1993 passed by the civil court in the suit filed by him. It is alleged that the petitioner and his brother Sarabjit Singh informed the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda that inspite of the order of the civil court the wall of their house was being demolished by the respondents.

Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents who have filed their written statements and denied the allegations made in the petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through their pleadings.

It appears that there is party fraction in the village and the residents thereof have been trying to prevent the petitioner and his brother Sarabjit Singh from encroaching upon the public street which is running in khasra No. 914 belonging to the panchayat. It is for this reason that civil suit 556 had to be filed in which the petitioner and his brother were restrained from encroaching upon the public street. The petitioner and his brother while constructing their houses on khasra No. 906 seem to have encroached upon a part of the public street in khasra No. 914 and when the residents restrained them from making any encroachment they filed the subsequent suit and obtained an order of status quo. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner had already appeared as a defendant in the previous suit in which he had been restrained from making any encroachment and without disclosing this fact in his plaint, obtained the order of status quo. Be that as it may, some of the residents of the village had approached the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda with a complaint that petitioner and his brother had encroached upon the public street inspite of an injunction order from the civil court passed in civil suit 556 referred to above. On receipt of the complaint, this officer directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer respondent 6 on 21.10.1993 to remove the illegal encroachment of the petitioner and his brother on the public street and report the same within one week. He was also advised to take police help. It was in pursuance to this order that respondent 6 alongwith some police officials reached the spot on 11.11.1993 at 11 AM. to remove the encroachment. The work of demolishing the wall had hardly commenced when a written direction from respondent 7 reached him directing him to stay his hands and direct the parties to appear before respondent 7 on 16.11.1993. It appears that on 11.11.1993 the petitioner appeared before the District Development and Panchayat Officer and apprised him of the court order dated 29.8.1993 whereupon respondent 6 was directed to stay his hands.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent 6 under the orders of respondent 7 and in collusion with the other respondents has demolished the wall of his house on 11.11.1993 and they have, therefore, committed wilful disobedience of the court order dated 29.8.1993. There is no merit in this contention. It is true that respondent 6 had started the demolition work on 11.11.1993 but he had immediately stayed his hands on receipt of a written direction from respondent 7. Admittedly, respondent 6 was not a party to the suit and at no earlier point of time had he been served with the court order. He came to know of the court order only on 11.11.1993 after the direction of respondent 7 had reached him requiring him to stop the demolition work. Since respondent 6 was not aware of the court order and was acting under the directions of his superior officers, he cannot be said to have committed any contempt. At any rate, he has tendered an unqualified apology and, therefore, the contempt, if any, stands purged. Respondent 7 in his written statement has categorically stated that he came to know of the court order dated 29.8.1993 only on 11.11.1993 when the petitioner approached him in the morning. This respondent had already directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 21.10.1993 to remove the encroachment. There is nothing on the record to show that respondent 7 was aware of the court order prior to 11.11.1993. In this view of the matter, respondent 7 has also not committed any contempt of the court order. Respondents 1 to 5 had already obtained a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and his brother from encroaching upon the public street and it is their case that inspite of that order the petitioner constructed a wall of the house on the public street. They bona fide complained to respondent 7 for removing the encroachment in terms of the court order. Again, there is nothing on the record to show that the ex parte order had been served on these respondents. In any case, the petitioner obtained the order dated 29.8.1993 from the court without disclosing the fact that respondent 4 had already obtained an order restraining the petitioner and his brother from effecting any encroachment on the public street. The petitioner had already appeared in their suit and the suit filed by him was subsequent to his appearance. It is because of this concealment of facts on the part of the petitioner that two inconsistent orders came to be passed by the civil courts and the petitioner himself is to blame in this regard. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.