CHAMAN LAL Vs. BRIJ MOHAN SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1952 made in the following circumstances: The applicant Chaman Lal (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) was a defendant in a suit filed by the opposite party Brij Mohan Singhal, in the court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, for restraining the applicant from interfering with the functioning of the opposite party as Manager of an educational institution known as National Public Inter College, Jalalabad, in Distt. Muzaffarnagar. That suit has not yet been decided. The opposite party in the proceeding before me, the plaintiff in the suit (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) had filed an application for an interim injunction also to restrain the applicant from interfering with the management. It appears that the opposite party claimed to be the properly elected Manager actually in charge of and running the institution, whereas the applicant was claiming to be the freshly elected Manager. The opposite party was challenging the validity of the meeting of the electoral body and of the new election. It appears that the learned Munsif ordered, on 18 -12 -1969, on the application for the interim injunction, that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant should function as the Manager until the final disposal of the suit, but the Distt. Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, should take charge of the management. The learned Munsif also directed that a copy of the order was to be sent to the Distt. Inspector of Schools for necessary information and action. Both sides, aggrieved by this order, had appealed to the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge, by means of an order dated 28th March, 1970, allowed the opposite party's appeal and ordered that the defendant be restrained from taking charge of the office of Manager of the institution. This meant that the learned Civil Judge had granted the Interim Injunction to prevent interference with the opposite party's management. Thereafter, a civil revision application was filed by the applicant challenging the order of the Civil Judge. This application was admitted on 23rd April, 1970 by this Court. On that very dale, B.B. Misra, J. admitted a stay application and passed an order in the following terms on it: - -

(2.) The contention before me is that the opposite party had intimation of the order of 23 -4 -1970, as is indicated by the fact that Onkar Prasad, the pairokar of the opposite party, filed an affidavit to support an application u/S. 151 CPC on 29 -4 -1970 in this Court praying for the vacation of "the stay order." I have gone through the application and the affidavit in support of it filed by Onkar Prasad on behalf of the opposite party, Brij Mohan Singhal, headed as a counter -affidavit. In para. 15 of this counter -affidavit, I find that it is stated that Chaman Lal applicant had obtained a stay order from this Court on 23 -4 -1970 which was "creating hindrances" in the day -to -day management of the institution. The opposite party, Brij Mohan Singhal, has filed a counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit in support of the application for proceedings for contempt. In para. 8 of this affidavit, the opposite party has asserted that he only came to know of the actual contents of the order passed by this Court when he came to Allahabad round about 7th of May, 1970. In reply to this assertion in the counter -affidavit, I find that it is stated, in para. 7 of the rejoinder affidavit, that the opposite party had come to know of the stay order earlier, and that, when he found that the Distt. Inspector of Schools had assumed charge as Manager of the institution the opposite party came to Allahabad. There is no assertion anywhere in the affidavits that the opposite party had interfered at all with the taking over of charge or the functioning of the Distt. Inspector of Schools as the Interim Manager of the institution.

(3.) It is not known on what date the Distt. Inspector of Schools actually took charge. But, letters written by the opposite party and other managerial actions performed by the opposite party, alleged to constitute contempt of the order of this Court passed on 23 -4 -1970, are confined to the month of April, 1970. This means that the opposite party functioned as the Manager only for seven days after the passing of the order by this Court, and, thereafter, the Distt. Inspector of Schools took over the Management of the institution. There is nothing to show that the opposite party himself had any knowledge of this Court's order in that period of seven days.