JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. Kamail Singh petitioner has filed the present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, against the respondents and the grouse of the petitioner is that the directions dated 9.5.1996 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in R.S.A. No. 2734 of 1994 have been flouted by respondents No. 1 to 6.
2. Shri Karnail Singh petitioner filed R.S.A. No.2734 of 1994 and it came up for hearing before my Lord Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.C. Garg on 7.4.1995 and his Lordship was pleased to admit the appeal. Thereafter, CM No.4806-C of 1995, was moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and it came up for bearing before my Lord Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.L. Gupta on 9.5.1996 and his Lordship was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Heard. The respondents are restrained from alienating the property during the pendency of this appeal.”
It is the case of the petitioner that order dated 9.5.1996 was in the knowledge of respondents No.2 to 6 but in spite of that respondents No.2 and 3 sold the land of Shri Gurbax Singh, respondent No.6 vide sale deed dated 16.3.1998 in connivance with respondents No.4 and 5 Amarjit Singh and Rajinder Singh.
3. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he submitted one application dated 23.2.1998 before respondent No.1 Shri Parveen Kumar Kalia the then Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar with a request to make an entry with regard to the stay order granted by the Hon’ble High Court but he showed carelessness by marking the application to the clerk who made the endorsement as follows :-
“As per law, unless Govt. is made a party, uptill then stay cannot be implemented.”
4. Notice of the contempt petition was given to the respondents and they filed reply and denied the allegations.
5.1 have heard Shri H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ajay Sharda, Advocate for respondent No. 1, and Shri Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
6. It is prima facie established on the record that the stay order was granted in the appeal in which respondents No. 2 and 3 S/Shri Sadhu Singh and Gurmit Singh were parties and they were restrained from alienating the property during the pendency of the appeal. It is also established on record by document Annexure P-3 that S/Shri Sadhu Singh and Gurmit Singh, respondents No. 2 and 3 executed a sate deed dated 16.3.1998 in favour of Shri Gurbax Singh, respondent No. 6 vide which a part of the property was sold for consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. It is also established that one application dated 23.2.1998 was moved before the Naib Tehsildar, Chamkaur Sahib, in which it was prayed that Halqa Patwari be instructed to make an entry in the revenue record with regard to the stay order granted by the Hon’ble High Court.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that S/Shri Sadhu Singh and Gurmit Singh, respondents, No. 2 and 3 have committed the offence of civil contempt when they have executed the sale deed dated 16.3.1998.
8. So far as respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, in my opinion, no offence is made out vis-a-vis them. Similarly, I hold that respondent No. 1 cannot be punished for the contempt because he in good faith marked the application to his Clerk for doing the needful as per the directions of the High Court. It was the Clerk who interpreted the order in his own manner and as per his own wisdom. No mala fides were involved on the part of respondent No. 1. Moreover, the actual entries in the revenue records were supposed to be made by the Revenue Patwari. It is true that the Clerk belongs to the office of Naib Tehsildar but respondent No. 1 cannot be held vicariously liable for the wrong interpretation and inaction of the clerk who is not even a party before this contempt petition. In these circumstance, I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each upon Sadhu Singh and Gurmit Singh respondents No. 2 and 3 for committing the civil contempt and they shall pay the aforesaid amount in the Court of CJM, Ropar, within 15 days, failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for ten days each.
9. Notice against respondents No. 1, 4, 5 and 6 is hereby discharged. Directions are
also given to Naib Tehsildar Chamkaur Sahib to ensure that the entry is made in the
revenue record with regard to the stay order granted by the High Court.