PYARE LAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the reference received from Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3. Additional Charge Court No. 2, Rohru, District Shimla, the present contempt petition has been registered and notice to show cause was issued to alleged contemner Sham Lal, who has filed reply, rejoinder to which has been filed by Pyare Lal on whose instance the reference was made. Pyare Lal and Sham Lal are real brOrs. .

(2.) Pyare Lal has filed civil suit against Sham Lal for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain Sham Lal from executing rent deed or to manage to his exclusive benefit or to collect rent of the shops situated over Khasra No. 423 in Notified Area Committee, Rohru unless and until these are partitioned alleging that it is the joint property of both of them alongwith other legal heirs of deceased Smt. Barfi Devi, who was their mother. In the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure filed by Pyare Lal the trial Court issued injunction order restraining Sham Lal from using usufructs of the suit property exclusively to the exclusion of Pyare Lal during the pendency of the suit by order dated 21.7.1992, which was confirmed by the District Judge on 21.5.1993 in the appeal filed by Sham Lal. In the Civil Revision (C.R. No. 143 of 1993) filed by Sham Lal, this Court passed the following order:

(3.) Thereafter the suit was tried and when it was at the arguments stage, an application was moved by Pyare Lal on 28.9.1997 that Sham Lal be directed to deposit the amount of rent of premises since 1993 onwards in any Nationalised Bank alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and reference of contempt proceedings be made to this Court against him. In the application it is alleged that Sham Lal has violated the undertaking given to this Court by not depositing the rent amount and by inducting tenants over the premises in dispute, detail whereof is given in the application. Sham Lal filed reply dated 17.8.1997 to the application in which he took preliminary objection that it was not maintainable before the trial Court as the alleged disobedience is of the directions/orders of the High Court. Denying the allegations made in paragraph 3 it is alleged that: