IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1697 of 2007 Date of decision : January 16, 2009 Ramji Lal ....Petitioner Versus Chandgi and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Khaira, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration was filed by Chandgi-respondent No.1 against Ramji Lal-petitioner and Smt. Patroi, widow of Parsada, that he, along with Smt. Patroi, was owner in possession of 2/3rd share and Ramji Lal-petitioner in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 63 Kanals 14 Marlas and that mutation No. 678 sanctioned on 10.6.1940 was liable to be set aside. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, which decree was, however, set aside in appeal. The petitioner then filed R.S.A. No. 3531 of 1999 in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed C.M. No. 7741-C of 2000 praying therein for restraining Chandgi-respondent No. 1 from alienating the suit property and dispossessing him from the same, which, according to the petitioner, was in his possession for the last 66 years. Notice of the application was C.O.C.P. No. 1697 of 2007 -2- issued to Chandgi-respondent No. 1 and others. After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated March 30, 2002 allowed the application and restrained Chandgi-respondent No. 1 and others to maintain the status quo as regards possession of the land in suit and also to treat the appellate decree as inoperative and, that, the respondents shall not alienate the land in suit. According to the petitioner, inspite of the aforementioned order passed by this Court on May 30, 2002, the respondents sold the land, measuring 25 Kanals 1 Marla out of the land in dispute measuring 63 Kanals 14 Marlas, to a private party vide sale deed dated 21.8.2007. Besides, the respondents have also turned out the petitioner from the suit land on 1.12.2007 by openly proclaiming that even the Courts of law could not stop them from acting as per their wishes. Accordingly, the respondents be hauled up for contempt for violating the order passed by this Court on March 30, 2002, whereby the respondents were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit land, besides not to alienate the same. Replies have been filed by both the respondents. In his reply, Chandgi-respondent No. 1 has stated that interim order passed by this Court on March 30, 2002 was not in his knowledge nor he has received any information from his counsel. Even the petitioner did not intentionally produce the order nor got the order entered in the revenue records. He has also denied that he turned the petitioner out of the suit land forcibly and illegally on 1.12.2007, rather he himself and C.O.C.P. No. 1697 of 2007 -3- respondent No. 2 were in possession as per their share since the very beginning. He has, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the present petition. Similar reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated March 30, 2002 as well as the sale deed dated 21.8.2007. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Chandgi was dismissed by trial Court, but said Chandgi was successful in his appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed R.S.A. No. 3531 of 1999 against Chandgi and others, which stands admitted. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed C.M. No. 7741-C of 2000 with a prayer for restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land and dispossessing him therefrom. Notice of the said application was issued to the respondents for 25.1.2001. Till then the respondents were required to maintain status quo as regards possession of the suit land. It was also ordered that they shall treat the appellate decree as inoperative, besides not to alienate the suit land. In response to the notice, Chandgi-respondent No. 1 was duly represented before this Court on March 30, 2002 when C.M. No. 7741-C of 2000 was taken up for hearing. While allowing the said application, the Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the possession of land and also to treat the appellate decree as inoperative and the respondents were further directed not to alienate the suit land. Once Chandgi-respondent No. 1 had been duly represented in the said application through his C.O.C.P. No. 1697 of 2007 -4- counsel, he cannot now say that he was not in knowledge of the order dated March 30, 2002. Presence of his counsel at the time of passing of the order dated 30.3.2002 was sufficient to impute knowledge to Chandgi-respondent No. 1. It was immaterial if the petitioner did not produce the order dated 30.3.2002 on 21.8.2007 at the time of execution of the sale deed by the respondents or that no entry was made in the revenue records regarding the interim order passed by this Court on 30.3.2002. It could have been a valid defence for someone else other than Chandgi-respondent No. 1 to argue that the petitioner did not produce the order dated 30.3.2002 or that the said order had not been entered in the revenue records. However, in the case of Chandgi- respondent No. 1 he had knowledge of the said order as he was duly represented by his counsel at the time of disposal of the application by this Court on 30.3.2002. It is a fact that the respondents have not denied the execution of the sale deed dated 21.8.2007. However, at the same time it has to be seen that Smt. Bado-respondent No. 2 was not represented at the time of passing of the order dated 30.3.2002, and, therefore, it may be difficult for this Court to hold that she knowingly, willingly and deliberately violated the order of restraint against alienation passed by this Court on 30.3.2002. Learned counsel for Chandgi-respondent No. 1 submits that his client is an illiterate person, who had not received any information from his counsel. Moreover, respondent No. 1 is 72 years of age and on C.O.C.P. No. 1697 of 2007 -5- account of ill health he is confined to bed. His client tenders unqualified apology for the violation of the order of this Court. Illiteracy and ill health of a contemner is no ground to exonerate him of the charge of contempt. These factors can be taken into consideration in the matter of imposition of punishment. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by Chandgi-respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted and is, therefore, rejected. In view of the above, the present petition, qua Smt. Bado- respondent No. 2, is dismissed. Rule issued against her is discharged. However, Chandgi-respondent No. 1 is held guilty of the charge of contempt. He is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as fine, which shall be paid within two months from today. In default of payment of the aforementioned amount, Chandgi-respondent No. 1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 16, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO