Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar vs Tarun Gupta And 12 Others on 19 May, 2023
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109635 Court No. - 5 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5820 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar Respondent :- Tarun Gupta And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. It is argued by Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner that in Original Suit No.269 of 1987 filed by Ram Prashad against Yamuna Pal and others in which present petitioner is a defendant, an order dated 12.08.1988 was passed directing both the parties to maintain status quo. It is further argued that aforesaid order is continuing even today.
2. In paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated that the plaintiff-respondent no.1st set namely Tarun Gupta recently tried to raise construction over the disputed land and since petitioner is a government employee hence in order to avoid any dispute on spot approached the local police station along-with the copy of the order passed by the court below and requested to the police administration to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Civil Court but they refuse to do so and told petitioner to approach the Civil Court itself. Thereafter petitioner filed application before the court below on 12.12.2022 and 09.01.2023, copies of which were appended as annexure no.6 to the petition.
3. It is further argued that taking advantage of the pendency of the aforesaid application in complete violation of injunction granted by the trial court, the plaintiff-respondent 1st set are trying to raise construction over the property in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagannathiya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2006 (8) ADJ 275. He relied upon paragraph 9 & 10, which reads as follows :-
"9. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that the proceedings are analogous to the contempt of court proceedings but they are taken under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. for the reason that the special provision inserted in the Code shall prevail over the general law of contempt contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act, 1971"). Even the High Court, in such a case, shall not entertain the petition under the provisions of Act, 1971. (Vide Ram Rup Pandey v. R.K. Bhargava and Ors. ; Smt. Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Ors. ; Rudraiah Company v. State of Kamataka and Ors. ; Papanna v. Nagachari AIR 1996 Kant 256 and Smt. Savitrt Devi v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Gorakhpur 2003 (3) AWC 1718 : (2003) 6 AIC 749 (All).
10. In Md. Jamal Paramanik and Ors. v. Md. Amanullah Munshi AIR 1989 (NOC) 50 (Gau), the Gauhati High Court held that it is not permissible for a court to impose a fine or compensation as one of the punishments, for the reason that the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A do not provide for it. In Thakorlal Parshottamdas v. Chandulal Chunnilal AIR 1967 Guj 124, Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) held that the punishment for breach of interim injunction could not be set aside even on the ground that the injunction was ultimately vacated by the appellate court. In Rachhpal Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh , a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if an interim injunction had been passed and is alleged to have been violated and application for initiating contempt proceeding under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A has been filed but during its pendency the suit itself is withdrawn, the Court may not be justified to pass order of punishment at that stage. Thus, it made a distinction from the above referred Gujarat High Court's decision in Thakorlal Parshottamdas (supra) that contempt proceedings should be initiated when the interim injunction is in operation."
3. On the basis of the same, it is argued that the court below be directed to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid application and till the time the decision is taken by the court below as an interim measure some protection be granted to the petitioner.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the court below to consider and decide the aforesaid application strictly in accordance with law and without influenced by the observations made in the present order on the next date fixed in the matter, i.e., 31.05.2023 after hearing all the parties concerned. If on account of any reason no orders were passed on the aforesaid date, the decision will be taken on the aforesaid application before 15.07.2023, if there is no legal impediment.
6. As in interim measure, Superintendent of Police, Basti as well as plaintiff-respondent are directed to ensure that in terms of the interim injunction granted by the trial court parties shall maintain status quo and no construction shall be raised over the disputed land till disposal of the aforesaid application or till 31.07.2023, whichever is earlier.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Pramod Tripathi