RAM CHARAN Vs. DEBI DAYAL DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for contempt proceedings against Sri Debi Dayal Dubey, President of the Municipal Board, Etawah; he is alleged to have disobeyed an injunction issued by this Court.

(2.) THE applicants instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Etawah, against "the Municipal board of Etawah, through the Chairman, Municipal Board, Etawah", for injunction to restrain the Board from constructing shops at the back of the applicants' shops Nos. 32 to 54 except Nos. 33, 39 and 43, situated in Humeganj Market of Etawah. The land in dispute was a strip 10 feet wide at the back of the shops and the Board was constructing shops to be let out to refugees on rent. The applicant's contention was that the land belonged to them and not to the Board. The suit was contested by the Board which claimed ownership in itself over the land. It was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the applicants fifed First Appeal No. 146 of 1954 in this Court on 27-4-1954. During the pendency of the suit, the Civil Judge had granted a temporary injunction restraining the Board on account of which the work of constructing the shops had remained stayed. The temporary injunction came to an end on the suit being dismissed by the Civil Judge. The Board resumed the construction and on the first appeal being admitted on 27-4-1954, the applicants applied to this Court for a temporary injuntion to restrain the Board from making any further constructions during the pendency of the appeal. A notice of the injunction was issued to the Board and during its pendency this Court passed an ex parte injunction on 7-6-1954 restraining the Board and its servants etc. , from making any constructions of any kind on the land till further orders. The applicant No. 1 obtained from this Court a certified copy of the injunction order and the applicant No. 2 approached the opposite party, the President of the board, with an application to which the certified copy was attached on 9-6-1954 and requested him to stop further constructions in obedience to the injunction. The President read the application and the copy of the order but refused to act on them on the ground that he was not bound to do so until the injunction order was served upon him through court. This Court sent out the notice to show cause and the injunction order on 14-6-1954 for service. The injunction order was addressed to "the Municipal Board, Etawah, through the Chairman, municipal Board, and expressly restrained "you, your servants, workmen and agents from making any constructions of any kind on the land in suit till further orders". The injunction order reached the office of the Civil Judge, Etawah, who was to serve it on 16-6-1954. The same day he entrusted the service to a process-server Mangal Singh, who at once went to the office of the board to effect service, but since it was past noon, he was informed that the President had left the office. Thereupon the process-server accompanied by the applicant No. 1 at 1. 30 p. m. went to Bharat Press where the opposite party works and met him and showed him the injunction order (and also the notice ). He read them but refused to accept them contending that they were not addressed to him in his personal capacity and, therefore, could be served on him only in the office of the Board. On the next day, i. e. , 17-6-1954, the process-server accompanied by the applicant no. 1 again went to the Board's office in the morning but found the opposite party and the executive officer absent and the clerks refused to accept the order. Consequently, the process-server and the applicant, went again to Bharat Press and met the opposite party, who again refused to accept the order and angrily asked them to clear out saying that the order could be served only in the office of the Board and not elsewhere. Thereupon the process-server wrote out a report mentioning the facts and submitted it to the Civil Judge, who on 18-6-1954 ordered him to try again. Consequently, on 18-6- 1954 the process-server and the applicant went again to the Board's office but were informed that the opposite party, the executive officer and the head clerk were all absent from the office. They at once went to Bharat Press and found the premises locked and were informed in writing by a neighbour that the opposite party had gone out somewhere. The process-server reported the matter in writing on 18-6-1954 to the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge ordered on 19-6-1954 that another process-server should be sent and that if the President and the executive officer still refused to receive the documents, the service should be done by affixation. The order and the notice were then handed over to another process-server Sita Ram, who on 19-6-1954 went to the office of the Board and served the order and the notice upon the opposite party through his clerk. On the same day, the opposite party ordered the executive officer to take necessary action at once. The executive officer on the same day wrote to the in charge overseer asking him to order the contractor at once to stop the work in accordance with the injunction order. On 21-6-1954 the contractor informed the executive officer that on receipt of his order on 19-0-1954 at 6 p. m. he immediately stopped all construction work, mentioned the state of the constructions at the time of stopping further work and inquired of the numbers of the shops in dispute so that the construction work on the land in front of the other shops might go on. It may be mentioned here that the Municipal Board is constructing 65 shops in a row and only 20 of them are in dispute and the injunction order related to the construction work going on at the back of them only.

(3.) THE case of the applicants is that the Board did not obey the injunction order and continued the construction work upto 8-7-1954. They described the condition of the constructions on 9th june, on 21st June and on 5th July. They further alleged that on 7th July, 1954, one of the applicants again went to the spot and asked the contractor to stop the construction but he refused to listen to him and abused him on account of which the applicant filed a report at the police station. The applicants, therefore, moved this Court for punishing the opposite party for contempt of court by refusing to accept the service of the notice and the injunction order and refusing to stop the construction on the land in dispute in spite of the knowledge of the injunction order.