C.O.C.P. No. 1739 of 2006 (O&M 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No. 1739 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.2.2009
Sumitra Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
R.S. Duhan and others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
RAJESH BINDAL J
****
The present petition has been filed to initiate proceedings against
the respondents for intentionally and willingly disobeying the order dated
November 6, 2006 in C.R. No. 5823 of 2006 titled as Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for injunction
along with an application for interim stay under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Though the trial Court granted interim injunction but the same was vacated by
learned lower Appellate Court. In C.R. No. 5823 of 2006 filed before this Court
on November 6, 2006, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo
regarding possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that inspite of conveying the order passed by this Court to
respondents, the construction activity by the respondents continued on the site
in question. The order passed by this Court on November 6, 2006, was
conveyed vide application dated November 9, 2006, to the Executive Engineer,
Municipal Council, Rohtak. In view of this fact the respondents are guilty of
committing contempt of this Court.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submitted that
the order was brought to the notice of Executive Engineer by the petitioner vide
letter dated November 9, 2006 and having noticed that no construction activity
was carried out thereafter. He further submitted that even an inquiry was got
conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in which it was found that after the
receipt of said order passed by this Court no construction was carried out and all
C.O.C.P. No. 1739 of 2006 (O&M 2
what was existing at the spot till that date remained as such. It was only a
boundary wall which was constructed prior to the receipt of the stay order. The
parties are claiming their ownership on the plot. On the one hand the petitioner
claims that she is owner of the plot whereas the Municipal Council Claims itself
to be owner in possession of the property. In view of this fact, no contempt has
been committed by the respondents. Still an unconditional apology has also
been tendered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that any
prima-facie case is made out for initiating proceedings for contempt against the
respondents. Admittedly the order passed by this Court on November 6, 2006,
was brought to the notice of the Executing Engineer on November 9, 2006. The
photographs placed on record shows that on the existing boundary wall of the
plot in question grills were being fixed to raise its height. In the suit filed by the
petitioner the dispute is regarding ownership and possession of the plot. The
petitioner claims that she is in possession of the plot as owner thereof having
purchased the same from Sh.Paramanad Tuli vide agreement to sell executed
by him on December 20, 1970 whereas the Municipal Council claims that the
plot in question is part of T.P. Scheme No.4-A and is in ownership of the
Municipal Committee, which has been developed as a public park within the
locality.
Be that as it may the claim of the parties regarding ownership and
possession of the plot is being considered by trial Court in the civil suit pending
before it. As far as the violation of the interim order passed by this Court is
concerned, on the basis of material produced on record by the parties, I find
merit in the stand taken by the respondents that after having received the order
dated November 6, 2006, on November 9, 2006, the construction activity was
stopped, which was only in the form of raising the height of boundary wall by
putting grills on the plot in question. The plot had already been developed as a
park and was being used by the residents of the locality. No construction activity
was carried out thereafter to give cause of action to the petitioner to file
contempt petition.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
10.2.2009 JUDGE
Reema