AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—By petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioners have prayed for initiating a proceeding against the opposite parties and punishing them for violating the order of status quo dated 31st October, 1991 and 28th September, 1992 passed in F.A. Nos. 145, 82, 54, 55 and 146 of 1990(R) and C.R. No. 413 of 1992(R), respectively, and for directing them to demolish the construction made in violation of the above said orders of this Court. The facts germane to this case, in brief, are as follows:-
(i) Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, several first appeals were filed, being F.A. Nos. 145, 82, 54, 55 and 146 of 1990(R), by the appellants/petitioners.
(ii) With the consent of the parties, those appeals were grouped for analogous hearing.
(iii) During pendency of the said appeals, a petition for grant of temporary injunction was filed by the petitioners.
(iv) By order dated 31st October, 1991, F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R) and analogous appeals were admitted for hearing. Injunction petition was also taken up, of which the counsel for the respondents accepted notice. 19th November, 1991 was fixed for hearing on Injunction matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 asserted that no construction is being made by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
(v) In that view thereof, on 31st October, 1991 this Court had passed the following order:-
31.10.91. It appears that arising out of the same judgment, these first appeals have been filed.
With the consent of the parities, these first appeals shall be heard analogously.
Mr. Lal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 and files his wakalatnama and states that he will file a counter affidavit within two weeks from today.
The learned G.P. No. 1 accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no. 7. He will also file the counter affidavit, if any, within two weeks from today.
The injunction matter shall be finally heard on 19th November, 1991.
Mr. Debt Prasad states that no construction is being made by the respondent no. 2 to 6 at the present and in this view of the matter, no Interim order of Injunction is required to be passed at this stage.
Status quo in relation to the lands in question shall be maintained by all the parties concern.
The learned counsel for the respective parties shall serve their respective memos of appeal within one week from today.
(vi) One revision was also filed by the respondents in this Court in the said matter, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 413 of 1992(R).
(vii) By order dated 28th September, 1992, the said revision was admitted for hearing and in the meantime, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in relation to the decretal premises.
(viii) The instant case is concerned with the order dated 31st October, 1991 passed in F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R), in which the suit land appertains to Khata No. 25, Plot No. 27 of Mauja Parasnath Hill.
(ix) According to the petitioners in spite of the order of status quo the opposite parties by forming a Committee, namely, Sri Digambar Jain Sammedachal Vikas Committee, consisting of Opposite Party Nos. 13 to 19, being office bearers, with the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 12, who were defendants in Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 and plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 23 of 1968, started making construction at Choprakund near Gautam Swami Tank over the land, which was the subject matter of the said suit.
(x) Their retained lawyer Informed the Divisional Forest. Officer, (sic) and requested him to take action, as the forest of Parasnath Hill is being managed by the Forest Department in terms of the agreement between the State of Bihar and the petitioners. The matter was also reported to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner in writing on 20th April, 1996, but they refused to take any action on the plea that they are not parties to the order of status quo.
(xi) Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged with Pirtand Police Station on 22nd April, 1996, but no action was taken.
(xii) The Range Officer of Parasnath Range, after holding local inspection of the site, reported the matter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih and also wrote to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Giridih to provide police force to stop the illegal construction, as informed.
(xiii) The Divisional Forest Officer/Range Officer filed a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, being Case No. 8(P) dated 30th April, 1996, u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 2 of Conservation of Forest Act and Section 17-A of Wild Life Protection Act and also initiated a proceeding u/s 66-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1972.
(xiv) According to the petitioners, Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 was a representative suit and all the members of Digambar Jain Sect are bound by the order passed in the said suit as also in the appeal filed in this Court, The State of Bihar (as then was) was also a party in the suit and the appeal, the officers of the State of Bihar were also bound by the order passed by this Court. But the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police in connivance of the opposite parties did not take any action.
(xv) The opposite parties have violated the Court''s orders dated 31st October, 1991 and 28th September, 1992, as stated above, they are liable for suitable. punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act for violation of the order to maintain status quo.
In support of the said allegations and contentions, the petitioners have brought on record the letters written by the petitioners'' lawyer to the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih, informing about the alleged construction (Annexure-3); letter written to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (Annexure-4); letters written by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih to Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Giridih for providing police force (Annexure-6 & 7); wireless message sent by the CM. Secretariat, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-8); Diary No. 285 dated 11th November, 1991 (Annexure-9); letter written by the Circle Officer, Pirtand to Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih (Annexure-10); wireless message by Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure-11); wireless message by Sub Divisional Officer to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure-12); letters sent by Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure-13); letter written by Assistant Sub inspector of Police, Pirtand to Superintendent of Police (Annexure-14); letter written by Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure-15); letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner to Superintendent of Police (Annexure-17); and wireless message by Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure-18).
It is relevant to mention here that initially 19 persons, who happen to be the office bearers of Bharat Varsiya digambar Jain Tirtha Kshetriya Committee, and local persons were representing the Digambar Jain Committee of India, The said office bearers and members of Sri Digambar Jain Sammedachal Vikas Committee, Madhuban, Giridih and the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih were arrayed as opposite parties.
By the passage of time since 1996 out of 19 private opposite parties, 10 died, and several office bearers were changed. The petitioners sought to substitute new persons as opposite parties. Some applications were also allowed.
It appears from the record that only the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih appeared and filed show cause reply, stating, inter alia, that the State was not a party to the suit and as such the allegation of disobedience of order of status quo is not applicable to the State of Bihar or the administration. The Deputy Commissioner is not responsible for the alleged violation. The Deputy Commissioner issued order to maintain law and order. The Divisional Forest Officer/Ranger has also filed case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih for violation of different provisions of the Indian Forest Act.
During pendency of the case, the trustees of the petitioners also changed and fresh Vaklatnama was filed on their behalf.
The case was, thereafter, taken up for hearing under the heading "For Admission" on 30th July, 2012.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and meticulously examining the record, this Court does not find sufficient ground for admitting the case for the reasons stated hereafter, which are as follows:-
(i) The original opposite parties, against whom allegations were made for violating the order of status quo, most of them are either died or their names are deleted from the record due to joining of new office bearers.
(ii) There is no cogent material on record in support of the allegation of violation of the order against one or the other opposite party. To support the allegation of violation of the order, the petitioners have brought on record several documents, as mentioned herein before. Out of the said documents, Annexure-3 is information given to the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih about illegal construction; Annexure-4 is in the nature of allegation sent to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner; Annexures-6 and 7 are letters written by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, alleging illegal construction by Digambar Jain people; Annexure-5 is the wireless message by the Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station to take preventive action to stop violence between the two parties; Annexure-8 is the wireless message sent by the Chief Minister Secretariat, Bihar, Patna, which speaks about stopping construction and removing illegal construction from forest area; Annexure-9 is true copy of Diary No. 285 dated 18th November, 1991; Annexure-10 is the letter by the Circle Officer to the Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih; Annexure-11 is Wireless Message No. 2251 of Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-Charge, Pirtand Police Station, directing him to maintain status quo; Annexure-12 is wireless message by Sub Divisional Officer to Officer-in-charge, showing deployment of police force; Annexure-13 is the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station, directing him to stop Illegal construction; Annexure-14 is the letter sent by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pirtand to the Superintendent of Police, informing about accumulation of building material at Choprakund; Annexure-15 is the letter of Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station, directing him to maintain status quo and seize the building material; Annexure-17 is the letter of the Deputy Commissioner to the Superintendent of Police, asking him to maintain law, order and peace; and Annexure-18 is the wireless message by the Superintendent of Police to Officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station, informing about the prevailing tension between Swetambar and Digambar.
(iii) The said documents, which have been brought on record, do not go to show as to what was the status of the plot, in question, before the order was passed and how the status has been disturbed and by whom.
(iv) There is general allegation that the opposite parties were making construction.
(v) As aforesaid 20 persons. Including the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, have been made opposite parties and there is no specific allegation against any of the opposite parties individually or severally.
(vi) On the said general and sweeping allegation against the opposite parties, 20 in numbers, the ground taken in Petition cannot be accepted as sufficient material/ground for initiating a proceeding and passing an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC or under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the CPC provides for consequence of disobedience of any order made or injunction granted under Rule 1 or 2 of the said Order. It reads as follows:-
2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.- (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more then one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the Injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
On plain reading of the said provision, it is evident that for disobedience of any order of injunction, the Court may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison.
The said provision being penal in nature, the allegation of disobedience has to be proved like a charge of criminal case. Mere allegation of disobedience is not sufficient.
The burden lies on the party, who alleges disobedience, to prove disobedience beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sri M.D. Nanaiah Vs. K. Nagaraju and others, , decision of the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in Lakhbir Singh Vs. Harpinder Singh and Others, and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Thresia Vs. Johny,
As stated hereinabove, there is no clear cut allegation against any individual opposite party and there is no material on record to definitely and specifically make out a case of breach of order of this Court, warranting Initiation of proceeding and taking action against the opposite parties.
In Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the power exercised by a Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is punitive In nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The person who complains of disobedience or breach has to clearly make out the case, beyond any doubt that there was an injunction or order directing the person against whom the application is made, to do or desist from doing some specific thing or act and that there was disobedience or breach of such order.
It has further been said that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, the Court cannot construe the order in regard to which disobedience/breach is alleged, as creating an obligation to do something which is not mentioned in the "Order", on surmises, suspicions and inferences. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the power under Rule 2-A should be exercised with great caution and responsibility.
The same principle is applicable for exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The allegation of committing contempt of Court is of quasi criminal nature and the same has to be made out in clear terms without any vagueness or haziness.
In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find sufficient ground to proceed and take action against the opposite parties either under The provisions of Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX C.P.C. or under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In the instant case, it is also relevant to mention here that during the long journey of this case since 1996, F.A. No. 145 of 1990(R) along with other connected first appeals was disposed of. Letters Patent Appeals arising therefrom, being L.P.A. No. 332 of 1997(R) with L.P.A. Nos. 333, 334, 335, 336 and 346 of 1997(R) were also disposed of and the SLP filed by the petitioners and others, being SLP (Civil) Nos. 25572-25576 of 2004, and the counter SLP by one Ratnesh Kumar Jain & Anr., being SLP (Civil) No. 2818-2819 of 2005, are shown to be pending in the Apex Court as per updated information dated 1st August, 2012, obtained from the official website of the Supreme Court of India.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground to admit this case or to initiate any proceeding either under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. or under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. This case is, accordingly, dismissed.