URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST JODHPUR Vs. BARKAT KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitoin is pending before this Court for last two years and still notices have not been issued. The petition is aginst the order of the learned trial court rejecting an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") filed on the ground that the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code did not give rise to any cause of action for the reason that the Court had passed the order to maintain status quo regarding possession and it was not possible to identify the land in respect of which the interim order had been passed and, thus, the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code should be rejected. The Court has dismissed the application on the ground that whether the land, in respect of which the interim order had been passed, could be identified, is a question to be determined after considering the evidence led by the parties.

(2.) In such a complicated issue as to whether the land, in respect of which the interim order had been passed, could be identified or not, is a question to be determined after appreciating the evidence led by the parties. Thus, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

(3.) Even otherwise, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had been filed in view of the provision of Section 141 of the Code, which reads as under :- "Miscellaneous proceedings.- The procedure provided in this code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in appropriate proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction." The provision does not provide to apply all the provisions in the Code in each and every proceeding. It stands qualified by the expression "as far as it can be made applicable." The provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code are of a different nature altogether. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Bihar v. Rani Sona Bati Kumari, has categorically held that the said provisions deal with the wilful defiance of the order passed by the Civil Court. The Apex Court held that there must be wilful disobedience of the injunction passed by the court and order of punishment be passed unless the court is satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order or there was an unintentional wrong for the reason that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the order but conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order. The proceedings were purely quasi-criminal in nature and are, thus, punitive. Even the corporate body like municipality/government can be punished though no officer of it is a party by name. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aligarh Municipal Board & Ors. v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union & Ors.; by the Allahabad High Court in Raton Narain Mulla v. The Chief Secretary, Gout. of U.P. & Ors.; and by the Delhi High Court in M/s. Jyoti Limited v. Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur Bhasin & Anr.