JAGDISH RAJ Vs. BACHAN LAL KALGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is directed against the order dated 18 -2 -1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu. The issue involved in the petition is, as to whether the construction raised in defiance of the Court order can be directed to be removed before the final determination of the dispute which has arisen between the parties in respect of a public lane, when the wall in between the lane and the compound collapsed and petitioners/defendants started its re -constrction. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit pleading in Para 2 of the plain: "That the wall of the defendants, which was Katcha one collapsed a few days back and the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to encroach upon the said public lane to the extent of about 2 to 3 feet. They had dug the foundation of the wall on the original place of the wall but today they have abandoned that foundation and are digging the foundation 2 to 3 feet towards the south by encroaching into the lane. If the defendants No. 1 and 2 succeed in doing so, it will be the encroachment on the public lane as well as it will narrow the only approach of the house of the plaintiff which shall considerably reduce the value of the house of the plaintiff."

(2.) TO obstruct the design of the petitioners, the respondent instituted a suit on 12 -3 -1991 and the trial court directed the maintenance of status quo on spot. The status quo order of the trial court was served upon the petitioners by the process server, Amar Singh in presence of M/S Ajay Bharti and Chander Mohan, practicing Advocates. The petitioners having the knowledge of the restrained order continued the construction to defeat the administration of Justice in flagrant violation of the directions of the Court. On 15 -3 -1991, the respondent filed an application under order 39 Rule 2 -A C.P.C. charging the petitioners for disobedience of the court order for not stopping the work on spot. The petitioners appealed against the order of status quo dated 12 -3 -1991, which appeal came to be decided on 23 -4 -1991 by observing as under: - "The appeal is therefore, accepted and the order impugned is set aside without any order as to costs. The parties, however, cannot be allowed to change the position on spot by raising any construction or otherwise by taking advantage of this order till any appropriate order is passed by the Court below. Both the parties are therefore directed not to change the position on spot by raising any construction or otherwise till any appropriate order is passed by the court below for making some interim arrangement. The file of the Court below is sent back with the direction that the injunctional matter will be disposed of by the trial court expeditiously..."

(3.) IT is apparent from the perusal of the appellate order that the restrained order passed on 12 -3 -1991 directing the parties not to change the position on spot by raising any construction or otherwise remained in operation, though the appeal was allowed.