PREM CHAND Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition arises out of orders passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Guhla and the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby the petitioner was found to be guilty of violating the orders of the trial Court dated 14.5.1998.

(2.) The factual position is that a status quo order was granted by the trial Court with regard to construction of a common wall which was subject matter of controversy between the parties. The case was adjourned to 21.5.1998 and then to subsequent dates and status quo order was extended. The plaintiff had contended that in spite of this subsistence of status quo order, the revision petitioner who was defendant in the suit had made some construction on the wall to complete its width to 13". He had thus violated the status quo order. On the other hand, the petitioner had contended that although the wall in dispute was originally 9" wide but he had constructed on the same to make it 13" so as to put an end to the bitterness between the parties. He has thus submitted that he has only facilitated the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. It was further his case that he had in fact made a statement in the Court that he would make the wall to 13". He had thereafter done so in terms of the statement made without being conscious of the fact that the interim order of staus quo had been extended. Therefore he submitted that it was not a case where he had willfully disobeyed the order of the Court and could be said to have committed contempt. Today at the time of hearing, the counsel for the parties stated that the matter has since been compromised between the parties.

(3.) After going through the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner has merit. In fact by constructing on the wall he had merely facilitated the claim of the plaintiff. He had done so in terms of his statement without meaning to violate the order of the Court. He was apparently unaware that the status quo order was extended. Keeping in view all these facts and also the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, I set aside the order passed by the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of violating the order of the Court dated 14.5.1998.