Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Seth Shrenikbhai Kasturbhai &O vs Sahu Ashok Kumar Jain & Ors on 27 August, 2012

Equivalent citations: 2012 (4) AIR JHAR R 580, (2013) 126 ALLINDCAS 538 (JHA) (2013) 2 JCR 151 (JHA), (2013) 2 JCR 151 (JHA)

Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari

Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.J.C. No.349 OF 1996 (R) ­­­­­ Seth Shrenikhbhai Kasturbhai & Ors.  ..... Petitioners  ­Versus­ Sahu Ashok Kumar Jain, President,  Bharat Varsiya Digambar Jain Tirtha Kestriya  Committee, New Delhi & Ors.  ..... Opposite Parties  ­­­­­               CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ­­­­­ For the Petitioners  : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Advocate For Opposite Parties  : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate  ­­­­­ C.A.V. On 30.07.2012  Delivered on 27.08.2012  Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. :  By petition filed   under   Order XXXIX Rule 2­A  of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   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 31 st  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. 

2. 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  2 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:­  "5.   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.   Debi   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  3 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, Giridih 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,   under  Section   33   of   the   Indian   Forest   Act,   Section   2   of  Conservation of Forest Act and Section 17­A of Wild  Life Protection Act and also initiated a proceeding  under Section 66A 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  4 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. 

3. 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   (Annexure­3);   letter  written   to   the   Superintendent   of   Police   and   Deputy  Commissioner,   Giridih   (Annexure­4);   letters   written   by   the  Divisional   Forest   Officer,   Giridih   to   Deputy   Commissioner   and  Superintendent   of   Police,   Giridih   for   providing   police   force  (Annexures­6 & 7); wireless message sent by the C.M. Secretariat,  Bihar,   Patna   (Annexure­8);   Diary   No.285   dated   11th  November,  1991 (Annexure­9); letter written by the Circle Officer, Pirtand to  Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih (Annexure­10); wireless message by  Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­charge,   Pirtand   Police  Station (Annexure­11); wireless message by Sub Divisional Officer  to Officer­in­charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure­12); letters  sent   by   Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­charge,   Pirtand  Police   Station   (Annexure­13);   letter   written   by   Assistant   Sub  Inspector   of   Police,   Pirtand   to   Superintendent   of   Police  (Annexure­14);   letter   written   by   Superintendent   of   Police   to  Officer­in­charge,   Pirtand   Police   Station   (Annexure­15);   letter  issued by the Deputy Commissioner to Superintendent of Police  (Annexure­17);   and   wireless   message   by   Superintendent   of  Police to Officer­in­charge, Pirtand Police Station (Annexure­18).  

5

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. During   pendency   of   the   case,   the   trustees   of   the  petitioners   also   changed   and   fresh   Vaklatnama   was   filed   on  their behalf. 

8. The case was, thereafter, taken up for hearing under the  heading "For Admission" on 30th July, 2012. 

9. 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. 

6

(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, Annexure­3 is information given to the   Divisional   Forest   Officer,   Giridih   about   illegal   construction;   Annexure­4   is   in   the   nature   of   allegation sent to the Superintendent of Police and  Deputy Commissioner; Annexures­6 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; Annexure­5 is the wireless message by  the   Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­charge,   Pirtand Police Station to take preventive action to   stop violence between the two parties; Annexure­8  is   the  wireless  message  sent   by  the  Chief   Minister   Secretariat,   Bihar,   Patna,   which   speaks   about   stopping   construction   and   removing   illegal   construction   from   forest   area;   Annexure­9   is   true   copy of Diary No.285 dated 18th  November, 1991;   Annexure­10 is the letter by the Circle Officer to the  Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih; Annexure­11 is Wireless  Message   No.2251   of   Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­Charge,   Pirtand   Police   Station,   directing   him to maintain status quo; Annexure­12 is wireless   message   by   Sub   Divisional   Officer   to   Officer­in­ charge,   showing   deployment   of   police   force;   Annexure­13   is   the   letter   issued   by   the   Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­charge,   Pirtand Police Station, directing him to stop illegal   construction; Annexure­14 is the letter sent by the   Assistant   Sub   Inspector   of   Police,   Pirtand   to   the   7 Superintendent   of   Police,   informing   about   accumulation of building material at Choprakund;   Annexure­15 is the letter of Superintendent of Police  to Officer­in­charge, Pirtand Police Station, directing  him to maintain status quo and seize the building   material;   Annexure­17   is   the   letter   of   the   Deputy   Commissioner   to   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   asking him to maintain law, order and peace; and  Annexure­18   is   the   wireless   message   by   the   Superintendent   of   Police   to   Officer­in­charge,   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 2­A of  the Code of Civil Procedure or under the provision of  Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

10. Rule   2­A   of   Order   XXXIX   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure  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:­  "2­A.   Consequence   of   disobedience   or   breach   of   injunction.­  (1)   In   the   case   of   disobedience   of   any   8 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 than 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."  

11. 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. 

12. 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.  

13. 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   &   Ors.   [AIR   1995   Karnataka 389],   decision of the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in  Lakhbir   Singh   Vs.   Harpinder   Singh  [AIR   2004   P&H   127]  and   the  decision of the Kerala High Court in   Thresia Vs. Johny [AIR 2003   Kerala 97].

14. 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.   

15. In Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukhdeo Prasad, [(2009)5   SCC   665],   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   held   that   the   power  exercised   by   a   Court   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   2­A   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  9 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. 

16. It   has   further   been   said   that   while   considering   an  application   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   2­A,   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  2­A should be exercised with great caution and responsibility.

17. 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.   

18. 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 2­A of Order  XXXIX C.P.C. or under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,  1971. 

19. 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 Special Leave Petition filed by the  petitioners   and   others,   being   S.L.P.   (Civil)   Nos.25572­25576   of  2004,   and   the   counter   Special   Leave   Petition   by   one   Ratnesh  Kumar Jain & Anr., being S.L.P. (Civil) No.2818­2819 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. 

10

20. For the reasons   aforesaid, I  find  no  ground  to  admit  this  case or to initiate any proceeding either under Order XXXIX Rule  2­A C.P.C. or under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 

21. This case is, accordingly, dismissed. 

(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/NAFR