Suo-Moto vs Ganpat Singh and Another

Vineet Kothari, J.—This contempt petition was registered upon suo-moto cognizance taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt. 21.12.2012, whereby the cognizance was taken suo-moto for the alleged breach of stay order granted by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the connected first appeal being CFA No. 121/07-Deva Ram @ Devi Singh vs. Ganpat Singh & Anr., in which the stay order was passed by the said Coordinate Bench on 20.03.2007 in the following terms:

Heard,

In the facts of the case, the stay petition is allowed and it is ordered that the respondents shall not make any addition, alternation, construction or obstruction on the land of way, till the pendency of this appeal.

Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that since the respondents-contemnors (defendants) were raising construction on the ''way'', which was about 12'' of width on the plot measuring 27'' x 45'', which was sold by the plaintiff to the defendants by a registered sale-deed, hence, the contempt was committed by them by violating the interim order, quoted above.

On the other hand, Mr. L.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents-contemnors submitted that no construction on the way has been made by the defendants-respondents. The construction of the house/plot sold by the plaintiff/petitioner was made way-back in the year 2004; and the interim order granted by this Court in the first appeal in favour of appellant/plaintiff having lost before the learned trial Court, was limited to the extent of restraint against any construction or obstruction on the land of way between the two houses. He further submitted that the construction of roof top "Sandla"/plaster was being done by the respondents-defendants and wrongly assuming to be a construction or obstruction on the way, claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner, persuaded the Coordinate Bench of this Court to take cognizance under the Contempt Law, which was so done on 21.12.2012 in the absence of both the counsels as Mr. Deva Ram (plaintiff himself) appeared before such Bench on 21.12.2012. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dt. 21.12.2012, the SHO, Police Station- Soorsagar, namely, Mr. Himmat Singh appeared before this Court and in the presence of both the lawyers, the Coordinate Bench was convinced that said SHO, had not breached the order of the Court, therefore, rule issued against him was discharged.

Reply to the contempt petition has already been filed by the private respondents, in which the respondents have contended that in the aforesaid manner, the way in question has not been obstructed and no construction has been raised on the land of way; and only rooftop plaster was being undertaken, which cannot amount to any breach of the Court''s order.

Admittedly, the first appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner, Deva Ram is pending before this Court and the parties are free to agitate their respective cause before the concerned Court. Once a reasonable and bonafide dispute is raised in the contempt jurisdiction that the defendants are not undertaking any construction obstructing on the way itself, for which the contention of the respondents seems to be plausible, the Court cannot naturally proceed against them in contempt jurisdiction, as the same is not intended to be a fresh adjudicatory process deciding the disputed questions of facts. In view of aforesaid contentions of the respondents, this Court is not inclined to proceed against the respondents/contemnors in the contempt jurisdiction. The parties are, however, free to agitate their case/cause before the this Court in their first appeal, stated to be pending consideration. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Notices stand discharged.