LAWS(HPH)-2003-7-5

GITA BHAWAN MANDI Vs. BALBIR SINGH

Decided On July 15, 2003
GITA BHAWAN, MANDI Appellant
V/S
BALBIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order is meant to dispose of the question as to whether in case of disobedience of an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the proceedings to punish for disobedience of the order will be maintianable under Order 39 Rule 2-A only or under saction 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which has arisen for determination in the present petition.

(2.) In brief, the material facts for answering the aforesaid question are that the petioner instituted a suit for possession of suit property, situate in Mohal Paddal, Mandi, which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, Apeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the learned District Judge and the case was remanded for retrial. Against the remand order the respondents filed an appeal in this Court. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (CMP No. 82 of 2002) was also filed wherein this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land vide order dated 18.1.2002. Since the petitioner was unaware of the order passed by this Court and the case stood remanded to the trial Court, it moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the trial Court with prayer for restraining the respondent from rising any construction over the suit land, In the said application, the trial Court, vide order dated 29.1.2002, passed an order restraining the respondent from raising any coringn on and changing the nature of the suit land. The respondent however, without caring for these orders, continued with the consruction and thereby violated the status quo order passed by this Court and the restraint order passed by the trial Court. Hence this petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer that the relent may be dealt with for having committed contempt of this Court.

(3.) The respondent contested the petition and filed reply wherein one of the grounds of defence is that an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has already been filed in the trial Court for the alleged disobedience of the restraint order passed by that Court and thus, the present petition is not maintainable.