Gurdip Singh vs Tara Singh

D.V. Sehgal, J. (Oral)

Neither the respondent nor his counsel are present. On January 8, 1988 when this petition came up for hearing before me, the respondent was present in person. He refused to make reparation which might have persuaded me to take a lenient view of the matter. He refused to do so despite persuasion by his counsel. His counsel then sought time to argue the matter and this is how this petition has been placed before me today. In the absence of the counsel for the respondent, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A brief resume of the facts is necessary.

On 16.11.1977, one Dhanna Singh executed an agreement to sell the land in dispute measuring 82 Kanals 9 Marlas to Satnam Singh and Pritam Singh for a consideration of Rs. 61,000/. They paid earnest money amounting of Rs. 32,500/ to Dhanna Singh. Satnam Singh and Pritam Singh in turn executed an agreement for sale of the aforesaid land on 1.1.1972 to Gurdeep Singh and Gian Singh for the same amount of consideration. They received Rs. 26,200/ as earnest money. Later, however, fresh agreement to sell in respect of the same land was executed by Dhanna Singh in favour of Satnam Singh and Pritam Singh for the same amount of consideration on 23.6.1972. They paid to Dhanna Singh a further sum of Rs. 8,500/. Thus the total earnest money paid to Dhanna Singh came to Rs. 41,000/. Satnam Singh and Pritam Singh also executed a fresh agreement of sale on 23.6.1972. By this agreement they agreed to sell 1/3rd of the same to Piara Singh, Tara Singh, Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh. These two sets of proposed vendees paid further amount of earnest money so that the total amount of earnest money so paid was Rs. 45,000/ in the following proportion :

Gurdeep Singh and Gian Singh Rs. 13,330.33

Piara Singh, Tara Singh,

Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh Rs. 26,616.66

The total consideration payable for the sale remained the same, i.e. Rs. 61,000/. It needs mention here that in the agreement of the sale executed by Danna Singh in favour of Satnam Singh and Pritam Singh it was mentioned that the aforesaid proposed vendees could get the saledeed executed either in their own name or in the name of anyone else. On 2nd July, 1973. Piara Singh, Tara Singh, Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh got executed a saledeed in their favour from Dhanna Singh in respect of 2/3rd of the land in dispute by paying a sum of Rs. 14,000/, in addition to the earnest money of Rs. 26,616.66 paise, already paid by them. However, in violation of the agreement to sell dated 23rd June, 1972, Piara Singh, Tara Singh, Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh got executed from Dhanna Singh another sale deed on 13.3.1974 in respect of the remaining 1/3rd of the property by paying to him a sum of Rs. 15,000/.

Thus, Gurdip Singh and Gian Singh having a grievance that the latter saledeed was got executed by Piara Singh and three others in respect of 1/3rd of the property from Dhanna Singh in breach of the agreement to sell dated 23rd June, 1972, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in respect of 1/3rd of the land in dispute. This suit was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Court and Gurdip Singh filed R.F.A. No. 252 of 1979 in this Court impleading Gian Singh as proforma respondent. In this appeal, an application was filed by Gurdip Singh appellant that Tara Singh who was a contesting respondent to the appeal should be restrained from making any construction in Kialla No. 7 Rectangle No. 24, the part of the land in dispute, or allowing Karnail Singh to raise any construction on the same. This application came up for hearing before me and I issued ad interim injunction vide my order dated 22nd January, 1987 restraining Tara Singh from making any construction himself or allowing Karnail Singh to raise any construction on the property in dispute till further orders.

Notice of the application on which ad interim order was passed was issued to the respondent. He appeared through his counsel on 16th February, 1987 and on a prayer made by him, the case was adjourned to 19th March, 1987. Ad interim injunction already issued was directed to continue.

Gurdip Singh, petitioner, filed the present contempt petition complaining that Tara Singh, respondent, in violation of the aforementioned ad interim injunction started construction on the property in dispute on 3rd March, 1987. He had raised the foundation and the super structures thereon. The petitioner stated that he requested the respondent to desist from constructing the walls but he did not pay any heed to his request. I issued notice of this contempt petition to the respondent who put in appearance and filed an affidavit stating that no construction was raised by him after the issuance of the ad interim injunction dated 22nd January, 1987. The petitioner, however, placed on the record photographs of the construction made by the respondent at the site at different stages. I found that disputed question of fact was involved and, therefore, directed the Senior SubJudge, Kapurthala to receive evidence of the parties and to submit his report as to whether or not the respondent had raised any construction after the ad interim injunction order and in violation of the same.

The report of the learned Senior SubJudge dated 16th October, 1987 was received. When this petition came up for hearing on 26th October, 1987, the learned counsel sought time to go through the said report. The petition again came up for hearing on November 27, 1987. In his report the learned SubJudge gave a categoric finding that the respondent had raised construction and had in fact constructed the house after the ad interim injunction order dated 22nd January, 1987. The learned counsel for the respondent sought another adjournment which I granted and directed that the respondent should also appear in person on 15th December, 1987. On 15th December, 1987, the respondent did not come present in person. A request was made by the counsel for the grant of another adjournment. Instead of issuing coercive process to secure the presence of the respondent, I granted this request and adjourned the case to 8th January, 1988. On 8th January, 1988, Tara Singh, respondent, was present in person. No objections to the report of the learned Senior SubJudge were filed on his behalf. It was explained to him that the finding returned by the learned Senior Sub Judge vide his report was that he had made the construction of the house on the land in dispute after the issue of ad interim injunction on 22nd January, 1987. A clear case of violation of the ad interim injunction order on his part had, therefore, been made out. He was required to demolish the construction so raised by him so as to make the reparation and to avoid the consequences of violation of the stay order. He was also told that in case he did not make the reparation he might attract punishment for contempt of court. Even his counsel explained his position to him but he was adamant and refused to demolish the construction made by him. His counsel sought time to address the arguments on the contempt petition and this is how the case was adjourned for today.

As already noticed above, neither the respondent nor his counsel are present today. The report of the learned Senior SubJudge, Kapurthala, has not been challenged on behalf of the respondent. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the respondent willfully disobeyed the ad interim injunction order issued by me on 22nd January, 1987, and started raising construction on the land in dispute. In fact, the petitioner requested him to desist from proceeding with the construction. He, however, continued raising the construction so much so that he has completed the construction of the house on the land in dispute. He, thus, violated the injunction order and it is a clear case of contempt of court. He even refused to make reparation by demolishing the construction raised in violation of the restraint order. Thus, he deserves no leniency.

Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, I hold that the respondent is guilty of contempt of Court. I, therefore, convict him under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo two months'' simple imprisonment along with fine of 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

Since the house in question has been constructed by the respondent in violation of the injunction order issued by this Court, I direct that the same should be demolished to restore the parties to the position they were on 21st January, 1987. Necessary process for taking the steps for demolition of the construction should be issued. If necessary, police assistance should be taken to demolish the construction.