Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

violation of their own undertaking given before the Court, even then the remedy was available to the plaintiff and the same would not fall under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. It would amount to civil contempt which could be tried and decided only by Hon'ble High Cour, and which remedy, the plaintiff failed to resort to. 14 Since after the order of appellate court concerned, there were no injunction order in operation any more, there could be no question of its violation. 15 Ld. Trial Court took a view that the violation of an undertaking given before Court, though would attract an action for a civil contempt under the Contempt of Civil Court Act, but same shall not be punishable under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC. Reference was also had to the observation made by the concerned appellate court of Ld. ADJ and also by the Hon'ble High Court to the effect that there were no addition or alteration or structural changes to be seen from the photographs. On the main premises that there was no injunction order existing in favour of the plaintiff on the date of the alleged violation, the question of violation did not arise, the application was dismissed. 16 Ld. counsel for appellant has emphasized the fact that as on 13.10.08, the respondent/defendant had given an undertaking and on 28.02.2009, the application u/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been allowed. Even though by subsequent orders, the said order allowing the application u/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been set aside, but fact remains that on 13.10.08, the undertaking given by the respondent/defendant was continuing to operate.

24 According to the appellant, respondent in fact had carried out additions or alterations in as much as the floor level had been changed and lowered by about 12 inches and moreover, a door earlier existing in the suit property had now been closed by the respondent. On the other hand, it was the contention of ld. counsel for respondent, apart from carrying out the repair work in the suit property, which was very old and dilapidated, no addition or alteration as such had been carried out and no structural changes had either been made or were intended to be made.

25 Hon'ble High Court after perusing the original order passed by Ld. Civil Judge and the one passed by Ld. ADJ and after having perused the report of Ld. Local Commissioner and the photographs filed on record, had been pleased to arrive at a conclusion that it could not be said that any additions, alterations or structural changes of any kind had been carried out by the respondent and instead that the suit premises being an old structure, only repair works had been carried out by the respondent. 26 As regards the floor level also, the claim of the plaintiff regarding difference of 12 inches in the level was not accepted and instead the Hon'ble High Court accepted Pages 8 to 10 Prem Lata & Anr. Vs. Ram Charan Aggarwal & Anr.

the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the difference was only of one or two inches and that also, could be rectified and accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent to bring back the floor to the earlier level.

27 The undertaking given by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court was held by the Hon'ble High Court to be substantially protecting the interest of the appellant and to allay their apprehensions and in addition, the Hon'ble High Court further directed the respondent specifically not to make any structural changes in the suit property. Further, respondents were also directed not to carry out any additions or alterations as had already been undertaken by them.