AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.(Oral) - By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks proceeding of criminal contempt against the respondents with the submissions that despite status quo order dated 28.01.2016 in Miscellaneous Case No.1 (T) of 2016,as passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, that has not been vacated by the Appellate Authority, the respondents wrongfully stated in the communication dated 02.04.2016 as if the stay order had been vacated and proceeded to take steps for dispossession of the petitioner from a shop situated within Umroi Military Complex, Umroi, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh.
Having perused the material placed on record, we find that in the order dated 28.01.2016, the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, even while stating that no interim was to be granted in favour of the petitioner at that point of time, proceeded to direct maintaining of status quo in respect of the said shop until further orders. It appears that the respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), being F.A.O. Case No.1 of 2016 under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemships (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein, notice was issued to the present petitioner.
Thereafter, the Station Headquarter Umroi Military Station sent a communication to the petitioner on 02.04.2016, suggesting that the Court of Deputy Commissioner at Nongpoh had vacated the order of stay. However, the said communication referred to a stay order purportedly passed on "28 Mar 2016" whereas, the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner had passed the stay order on 28.01.2016.
Be that as it may, even if the submissions of the petitioner are taken on their face value, the present one appears to be a case of allegation of disobedience of an interim injunction order by the defendants to the suit. It is difficult to accept that every alleged disobedience or breach of injunction may directly be a matter of contempt proceedings. In any case, the allegations of the present nature do not make out a case for criminal contempt.
Indisputably, the order had been passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner on the spirit of the provisions for temporary injunction per Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and the scheme of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for appropriate proceedings, if there be any disobedience or breach of injunction.
The petitioner is free to take recourse of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in case of any legal grievance but no case for proceeding against the respondents for criminal contempt is made out.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed subject to the observations foregoing.