Gahar Singh and anr. vs Nand Ram and anr.

S.P. Goyal, J.

The land in dispute measuring 75 Kanals, 2 Marlas, Rectangle No 30, milla nos. 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 owned by one Kuldip Singh was declared surplus, allotted to the petitioners under the Utilization Surplus Area Scheme and possession delivered to them on February 13, 1964. After 15 years thereof the Prescribed Authority under the Haryana Ceiling on land Holdings Act, 1972, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and allotted the said land to respondents. That order was challenged by the petitioners by way of a suit and an adinterim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over the suit land. However, in appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, set aside that order. The petitioner came up to this court in Civil Revision No. 816 of 1981 which was admitted and their dispossession stayed vide order dated April, 2, 1981. A copy of the order was served on Shri Narinder Singh Yadav, the counsel for the respondents in lower Appellate Court on April 9, 1981. He, in turn, sent those papers to Sh. M. L. Yadav, Advocate, Rewari thinking him to be, their counsel, to be passed on to the Respondents. On 20th April, 1981 Nand Ram respondent No. 1. went to Sh. M. L. Yadav, Advocate, and collected the papers from him. Inspite of the knowledge of the stay order, the respondent tried to take the possession of the land in dispute on 29th April, 1931 with the help of the Revenue staff and a report Annexure P1 was duly recorded in the roznamcha of the Patwari that the possession had been delivered to the respondents, which led to the filing of this petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for taking proceedings; against the respondents for violation of the violation of the said order of this Court.

The defence set up by the respondents is that the copy of the stay order was never served on them nor they had its knowledge; when the possession was delivered to them by the Kanungo on April, 29, 1981. As there was dispute on facts, the case was sent to the learned sub Judge Ist class, Rewari, for recording evidence of the parties.

To prove the service of the stay order, on the respondents, the petitioners examined Vijay Singh, Assistant Nazir of the Court of Senior Sub Judge. Narnaul as AW, Ghisa Ram Process server AW3 and Ghahar Singh appeared as his own witness as AW5. In rebuttal the respondent Nand Ram gave his own statement and examined Har Lal Patwari RW2, Raja Ram Lamberdar, RW3, Bahadar, RW4 and Balbir Singh RW5. As none of the parties examined Shri M. L. Yadav, Advocate, who delivered the copy of the stay order and summonses to Nand Ram on April 24, 1981, I examined him as Court witness.

From the combined reading of the statements of Vijay Singh AWI and Ghisa Ram AW3, it is apparent that the copy of the stay order and summonses were received in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Nornaul on 9th and 16th April, 1981 and were duly served on Shri Narinder Singh Yadav, Advocate for the respondents on those very dotes. Shri M. L. Yadav, Advocate deposed that he had received the papers from Sh. Narinder Singh Yadav relating to the Civil Revision pending in the High Court, which were delivered by him to Nand Ram Respondent on April 24, 1981. This witness was not at all crossexamined by the learned counsel for the respondents. Apart from respondent Nand Ram, none of the witnesses produced by him has stated anything in this respect. The statement of Nand Ram that he collected the papers from Sh. M. L. Yadav, Advocate, 10/15 days after he had taken the delivery of possession cannot be believed because there could be no motive for Sh. M.L. Yadav, Advocate, to make a wrong statement. It is, therefore, proved beyond that Nand Ram respondent No. 1 had received the copy of the stay order of this Court on 24th April, 1981 from Sh. M. L. Yadav, Advocate.

So far as the other two respondents Man Chand and Sher Singh are concerned, there is no direct evidence on the record which could show that they had the knowledge of the stay order. However probable it may be that they also had the knowledge of the stay order but a finding against them cannot be recorded on the basis of probably alone. Consequently, the rule issued against Man Chand and Sher Singh is discharged but Nand Ram is held guilty. of Civil Contempt for Violation of the stay order referred to above.

On the question of punishment the learned counsel for the respondents stated at the bar that Nand Ram was prepared to tender unqualified apology but no written apology has been produced till today. Moreover, Nand Ram has taken a false stand in defence and supported it on oath. It is therefore, not a fit case to accept his oral apology.. Nand Ram is consequently convicted of the Contempt of Court under Section 12 and fined Rs. 1000/. He shall also bear the costs of the petitioner and the counsel''s fee for that purpose is assessed at Rs. 500/.

JUDGMENT accordingly.