BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bakshish Singh petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining Amrik Singh respondent from cutting and removing the trees standing on the land in dispute. This suit was decreed by the trial Court. On an appeal filed by Amrik Singh, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dated 19th October 1982. It was observed that Khasra number 30/2, in which the trees regarding which the parties were litigating, bad been encroached upon by Amrik Singh, the remedy of Bakshish Singh was by filing a suit for possession and not a suit for permanent injunction. Aggrieved, Bakshish Singh filed regular second appeal No. 1371 of 1983 in this Court on 21-6- 1983. The Motion Bench sent for the records and ordered the maintenance of status quo in the meantime. Bakshish Singh has filed this petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, on the allegations that he procured a copy of the stay order granted by this Court from his counsel on 24 6-1983. He took the same to his village and showed it to Amrik Singh respondent. However, Amrik Singh, along with other respondents came to the land in dispute on 29-6-1983. He and his companions cut 11 Euclyptus trees and one Ben tree, standing thereon. The petitioner, with great difficulty, restrained them from cutting the other trees. The petitioner brought Kanwar Singh, Sarpanch of the village and Police to the spot. On their intervention, the respondents went away, leaving the cut-trees at the spot. It has been alleged that Amrik Singh and his companions have flagrantly violated, the stay order passed by this Court and have committed contempt of this Court.

(2.) In reply to the notice, Amrik Singh has put in his affidavit, giving his own version of facts. He has deposed that after his appeal had been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Roopnagar op 19-10-1983, he cut 11 Euclyptus and one Ben trees, standing on the land on June 20, 1983. He denied that the petitioner had shown him the stay order, granted by this Court, on 24-6-1983. He further stated that on June 24, 1983 (ignorant of the stay order passed by this Court) when he wanted to remove the cut-trees, there was some altercation between him and the petitioner. Bakshish Singh brought this fact to the notice of Kanwar Singh the village Sarpanch. Thereafter the deponent did not remove the trees from the spot and they are still lying there. Along with his own affidavit, he has put in the affidavits of Kanwar Singh, Sarpanch of the village; Hazara Singh, Lamberdar and Chanan Singh. All of them have deposed in the a Suavity that 11 Euclyptus and 1 Ben trees were cut by Amrik Singh on 20-6-1983 and not on 29-6-1983, as alleged by Bakshish Singh. Kanwar Singh has further deposed that on 24-6-1983, there was some dispute between the parties regarding the removal of the trees and the matter was reported to him. Bakshish Singh has also put in affidavits sworn by Kahla Singh, Sunder Singh, Balwant Singh and Phuman Singh of village Shakrullapur, in support of his case. They all have stated that the trees were cut by Amrik Singh and his companions on 29-6-1983.

(3.) Pending the contempt petition, the regular second appeal filed by Bakshish Singh has been dismissed by this; Court on October 11, 1983. It is apparent from the narration of the above facts that Bakshish Singh has accepted the presence of Kanwar Singh, Sarpanch of the village, at the spot on the day the aforementioned trees were alleged to have been cut, i. e. 29-6-1983. However, Kanwar Singh, Sarpanch has not supported this version. He bas, rather, supported the version given by Amrik Singh and stated in categoric terms that the trees had been cut on the 20th June, and not on the 29th. He has further stated that this matter was brought to his notice on the 24th June, 1983. The facts have been hotly contested by the parties. These contempt petitions cannot be appropriately adjudicated upon in these proceedings. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel it expedient to take any case against the respondents. The contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.