NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. LAKSHMINARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dtd. 22/5/2019 in Contempt Application No.15/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner's application for quashing of the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC for alleged willful default on his part qua the interim order dtd. 7/2/2014 passed on an application of the respondent- plaintiffs.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, at the time, the interim order dtd. 7/2/2014 was passed by the trial court he was not holding the post of Tehsildar, Jaipur Division nor was he holding the post on 24/2/2014 when it was conveyed to the erstwhile Tehsildar, Jaipur Division. It has been submitted that petitioner came to be posted as Tehsildar, Jaipur Division only on 13/8/2014. Vide order dtd. 10/2/2015 the SDO, Jaipur (First) in Revenue Suit No.110/2014 came to pass a decree for partition and permanent injunction. Pursuant to the said decree the Nayab Tehsildar, Kalwar made requisite revenue entries on 16/2/2015 apparently qua the land covered under the interim injunction in the trial court's interim order dtd. 7/2/2014. No act was done by the petitioner or at his instance. Yet he being pursued in the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC for alleged willful default on his part for allegedly not making entry of the interim order dtd. 7/2/2014 in the revenue records when in fact there was no specific direction to that end. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved in the circumstance before the trial court seized of the application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC for the petitioner's alleged willful default qua the interim order dtd. 7/2/2014 praying that he had in no manner whatsoever committed willful breach thereof. Entries in the revenue record following the decree of partition dtd. 10/2/2015 passed by the SDO were by the Naib Tehsildar and not him nor at his instance. The trial court has however dismissed the said application on the specious ground that it contained the petitioner's defence which he would be free to set up in the course of the trial in the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC.

(3.) Mr.Pankaj Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not attracted to proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, the application filed ought to have been considered under Sec. 151 CPC which confers inherent powers on the courts inter alia to set aside at the threshold vexatious proceedings of whatever nature before the civil court. It was submitted that the petitioner was being prosecuted for willful default under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC without any act or omission in breach of the court's direction on his part.