SHARIF AHMAD Vs. KHALILUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 has been moved by Sharif Ahmad and two others, who are originally the plaintiffs in suit No. 36 of 1976 of the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh, Anwar Ahmad and others v. Samshuddin and others (including opposite parties 1 and 2) which was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants of that suit from interfering in the religious performances and offering of Namaz etc. by the plaintiffs in the Masjid in suit. This application was moved against five opposite parties. However, before the facts are entered into it may be observed that the present application was dismissed as against opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 on 12.8.1983.

(2.) Accordingly the present application is to be considered against the remaining opposite parties Nos. 1,2 and 3 only. The Civil Judge had refused the temporary injunction prayed for. Anwar Ahmad and 26 others plaintiffs filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 75 of 1976, Anwar Ahmad had others v Molvi Samshuddin and others, in the Court of District Judge, Azamgarh. That appeal was allowed on 28.3.1977 and the temporary injunction prayed for was granted. Against this order Molvi Samshuddin and others (including Mohd. Yunus) defendants filed Civil Revision No. 654 of 1977, Mo/vi Samshuddin and others v. Anwar Ahmad and others, in the High Court. The copy of the order dated 20.12.1977 passed by the High Court in that revision is Annexure 1. It shows that during the pendency of the said revision the learned counsel for the parties had stated on behalf of their clients that the parties were agreed between themselves that the defendants may construct Masjid on its old site and may also raise a boundary wall on the land shown by letters A,B,C,D, CI, C-2, D,E F, I, F, G in the Commissioners map 14-C-2. But they shall not obstruct the entry of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute and for the use of the same for religious activities. In view of the above statement made the revision was dismissed as not pressed.

(3.) In the present application the three applicants have contended that they were also the plaintiffs and the defendants were restrained (by the order of the High Court dated 20.12.1977) from obstructing their entry over the said land and from using the same for religious activities. However, their contention is that Mohd. Yunus and others, defendants, got the Masjid reconstructed on its old site and they wanted to remove ballis, Patras and other wood from the said Masjid add wanted to clean the same but they were obstructed from doing so by the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Accordingly Mohd. Yunus and others, defendants moved an application in the Court of Civil JudgeII. Azamgarh for issuing commission to the Civil Court Amin to remove the articles and wood used in connection with slab at the time of reconstruction of the Masjid in question. The copy of order passed by Civil Judge-Il on 24.8.1979 on the said application is Annexure T2T. Its perusal shows that there was some dispute between the parties regarding the title of Ballis, Patras- and wood in question. The learned Civil Judge-Il observed while passing the said order that under the circumstances, it would not be proper at this very time to decide the title of the wood, Patras and kuris used in the slab. It appears that what Mohd. Yunus and others want is the removal of the wood etc. and cleaning of the Masjid for offering prayer. The application of Mohd. Yunus and others by partly allowed. Let a commission be issued to the Civil Court Amin who will remove ballis, Karis, Patras etc. from the Sanoba of the masjid and get the masjid cleaned. The Amin will prepare the list of the articles and file the same in the Court. The wood and Patras etc. will be kept in a portion of the land in suit and the same will be given in the Supurdgi of a prudent man. After the decision of the case on merit if the wood etc. are found as the properties belonging to Mohd. Yunus and others, then defendants 1 to 3 (the objectors) would be liable to pay damages on such rate as the Court deems fit.'