TIKARAM PARASHAR Vs. DAMODAR PRASAD TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code against an order dated 17-8-1983 of the Fifth Civil Judge (Class II), Gwalior, in M. J. C. No. 11 of 1983 by which a decree-holder's application dated 17-3-1983 (purporting to be under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with order 21. , Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code) for punishing the non-applicants for their having begun (on 13-3-1983) survey and demarcation in Kh. No. 86 situate at village Londhra in disobedience of a decree dated 6-3-1972 passed by the court below in case No. 115-A of 1979, permanently restraining the defendant (the state of Madhya Pradesh) from obstructing the declared 'bhumiswamis' of the lands, viz : applicant Tikaram and Shambhusingh (the plaintiff) in 'peaceful and legal occupation of the lands and for ordering a halt to the survey and demarcation work.

(2.) APPLICANT Tikaram filed the application against non-applicant 1 damodar Prasad Tiwari and non-applicant 2 O. S, Shrivastava who were the D. F. O. and and A. C. F. in the Gwalior Forest Division. N. A. 2 Shrivastava stated that he has neither disobeyed, nor intends disobeying, the Court's order. Then the applicant's application dated 7-4-1983 for impleading Rajendra Singh kushwah (the successor-in-office of No. 1 Damodar Prasad Tiwari) was allowed. On 5-5-1973 P. S. Mardikar the successor-in-office of Rajendra Singh Kushwah with effect from 10-4-1983 was made non-applicant 4 in the case. On 12-5-1983 mardikar stated that he had been unnecessarily joined as a party. On 27-9-1983 rajendra Singh Kushwah was taken off the array of non-applicants on the applicant's request made on the ground that Kushwah had been transferred to a place not known to the applicant, and then the case was fixed for arguments as prayed by the counsel.

(3.) ARGUMENTS were heard on 2-8-1983. The Judge posed the question whether he had jurisdiction to hear the application and mentioned the applicant's reliance on section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Aligarh Municipal board and Others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1967. The learned Judge distinguished the ruling on the ground that it related to a case to which the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, appalled. He said that the law stated in the ruling was not an authority for investing jurisdiction on him in respect of the application. The Judge then said that the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish contempt, and that he (the Civil Judge) had no such power. The Judge therefore dismissed the application on the grounds that he had no jurisdiction to hear the application.