CHANDRA KISHORE Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that in spite of the order dated 10.11.1992 in Writ Petition No. 40493 of 1992 the opposite parties have made constructions over the disputed land.

(3.) The applicants preferred Suit No. 88 of 1992 against the opposite parties for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction over the passage and road existing towards north of the applicants 'bazar'. An application for interim injunction was also made. An interim injunction was granted on 28.5.1992 and Commissioner's report was also called upon who vide report dated 2.9.1992 found that the disputed land was vacant and was being used by the applicant and also by his tenants and shopper for ingress and egress to his 'bazar'. However, the trial court rejected the injunction which was subjected to challenge in a Civil Appeal where also interim injunction was granted and continued till the appeal was dismissed on 6.11.1992. Against both the orders, the aforesaid writ petition was filed and both the opposite parties were restrained from making any construction over the disputed land vide the order dated 10.11.1992. It is stated that in spite of the aforesaid order the opposite parties refused service and started constructions and in spite of telegrams being sent to him he did not stop. Telegrams were also sent to the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police on 12.11.1992 and in fact the applicant also met them when on the direction of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Station Officer elicited a promise from the opposite parties to stop constructions but the constructions of about six shops continued after the Station Officer was won over. Thus, the applicant made an application dated 16.11.1992 before the trial court where the opposite party filed his reply on 17.11.1992 stating that he did not know about the High Court's injunction and he had already completed the construction work uptil 10.11.1992. Since the constructions were still going, two commissions were issued which submitted reports dated 6.1.1993 and 30.1.1993 which stated that six shops have been newly constructed. Even during the execution of the commission, plastering, white washing and setting up shutters were going on. All the six shops were constructed by using bricks and cement with a lintalled roof. As the constructions and improvements were going on without even bothering to file any stay vacating application or a counter-affidavit, the applicant preferred this contempt petition on 8.2.1993.