SATYA DEVI Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CMP No. 12 of 2005 filed by the respondents ­ applicants under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the non-applicants ­ appellants for disobedience of this Court orders dated 13.8.2002 and 1.1.2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for decision of the case are that Satya Devi and Parkash Chand filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that late Smt. Parvati had executed a Will dated 29.11.1980 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. in their favour which was her last Will. The defendants contested the suit. This suit was decreed on 27.6.1985. The defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 87 of 85/97 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti Districts at Mandi on 28.2.1989. The defendants thereafter filed RSA No. 273 of 1989 in this Court. This second appeal was allowed by this Court on 16.5.1997 and the case was remanded to the lower appellate Court and the parties were directed to appear before the Court on 13.6.1997. It appears that the present plaintiffs ­ appellants did not appear after remand and the appeal was heard in their absence and allowed by the learned lower appellate Court on 24.6.1997. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs ­ appellants stood dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs ­ appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 13.6.1997 and ex parte decree dated 24.6.1997. This application was also dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court on 4.7.2002.

(3.) THE respondents No. 1 to 7 have filed the present application alleging that though both the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question, the appellants have flouted the said orders passed by this Court. According to the respondents ­ applicants, the plaintiffs ­ appellants raised construction on the land in dispute after passing the aforesaid orders dated 13.8.2002 and 1.1.2003.