AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Petitioner herein was appellant in the Appeal from Order No.76/2008. The said appeal from order arises out of order passed on application for injunction.
Under Order 39 Rule 1-A etc. of the C.P.C. The present respondents were the defendants in this suit. The learned Trial Judge had passed order of injunction against defendant no.3 and declined to pass an order of restraint against defendants No.1 and 2. In Appeal from Order No.76/2008, said order of trial court on 5.6.2008 was challenged. This court has dismissed said appeal arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.2009. In the result, the order of the trial court was confirmed.
In para 8, of order passed in A.O. 76/2008 this court has recorded the submission of Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, learned Government which reads as follows:-
8.
.......................................................................................................................................................To this, Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Government will not allow either the plaintiff or Defendant No.3 to carry on any mining activities unless requisite permissions as required under law are obtained from the Government.
(quoted from page 21 of paper book of contempt
petition)
In this contempt petition, it is seen that the applicant has read the said submissions made by learned Government Advocate, quoted in the foregoing para to be a statement or concession, and the petitioner urges that the Government was bound to take an imperative action against the defendant No.3 restraining him from continuing excavation /mining which defendant No.3 has been doing.
This being the contempt application it was and it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to demonstrate as to which either prohibitory or mandatory direction contained in the order passed by this Court, which has been disobeyed by any of the defendants.
During long hearing before this Court all that has been tried to be shown is that the defendant No. 3 has disobeyed the prohibitory injunction clamped upon him by the trial court. Rest of the arguments which are advances are based on plaintiff''s inferences as regard the obligation on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and any act of disobedience by these respondents is not shown.
It is therefore clear that a grievance of any act of willful disobedience of order passed by this Court by respondents No.1 and 2, is not made out. Therefore no case for cognizance contempt is disclosed in the petition, and hence the petition deserves to be rejected.
It is clarified that this rejection shall not in any manner come in the way of petitioner if the petitioner wants to move trial court for breach of order of injunction, Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C., if it so fits and if it is so advised. With above observations contempt application is dismissed.