C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.8.2011 O.P. Verma ....Petitioner Versus Shahmal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Alka Sarin,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.19628-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. Annexures P.14 and P.15 are taken on record. C.R.No.4222 of 2011 Petitioner-O.P. Verma has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order 13.6.2011 (P.7) passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad whereby an appeal filed against the order dated 11.3.2010 (P.5) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad allowing the contempt petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC filed by the plaintiff- respondents wherein the petitioner-respondent No.1 was held liable for violating the injunction order dated 19.9.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.547 of 16.9.2000 and ordering their civil imprisonment for a period of one month, has been dismissed. C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #2# Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a Civil Suit No.487 of 2000 dated 16.9.2000 for permanent injunction against the defendants i.e Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, Haryana, its Commissioner & Joint Commissioner, M.C Faridabad, wherein the trial Court passed the interim injunction order on 19.9.2000 (P.2)against the defendants and adjourned the case to 10.10.2000. Thereafter, a contempt petition dated 21.11.2000 (P.3) under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC was filed for disobedience of the injunction order dated 19.9.2000 against the present petitioner and the other defendants i.e Commissioner & Joint Commissioner, M.C Faridabad. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and sought time for filing reply but the petition was dismissed against defendant No.3-Joint Commissioner, M.C, Faridabad. The contempt petition came up for final hearing on 11.3.2010 (P.5) and the learned trial Court while allowing the petition held defendant Nos.1-petitioner (Sh. O.P. Verma) & 2 (Sh. Ankur Gupta, the then Commissioner, M.C, Faridabad) liable to violate the injunction order dated 19.9.2000 and ordered to detain in civil prison for a period of one month. Aggrieved against the order dated 11.3.2010, petitioner preferred an appeal bearing CMA No.61 dated 12.4.2010 (P.6) but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 13.6.2011 (P.7). It is necessary to mention here that connected appeal bearing CMA No.60 dated 12.4.2010 filed by Sh. Ankur Gupta, the then Commissioner, M.C C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #3# Faridabad, was allowed vide the same order dated 13.6.2011 (P.7) and order dated 11.3.2010 (P.5) qua him was set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no demolition at the site had been conducted by the demolition team on 4.10.2000. It is further argued that removal of encroachment, if any undertaken by the official of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on 4.10.2010 had been ordered by the Commissioner and Supervised by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and the petitioner had merely followed the orders and thus he can not be held liable for disobedience of injunction order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the learned trial Court. It was also argued that the order/judgment passed by both the courts are wholly erroneous and sustainable in the eyes of law. It would be necessary to reproduce the interim injunction granted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.9.2000, which is the very basis for initiation of the contempt proceedings and the same reads as under: “Service completed. Adjournment is sought. Now case is adjourned to 10.10.2000 for filing W/s and reply to stay application. Till then defendants are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property.” It is necessary to mention here that the contempt petition was filed through Sh. Vinod Bhadana being the Special Power of C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #4# Attorney Holder of the original plaintiffs and the paragraph 4 & 5 of the contempt petition, which are material for the proper adjudication of the matter in controversy, reads as under: “4. That the respondent No.1, Shri O.P. Verma visited the site on 2.10.2000, where Shri Vinod Bhadan, who is the nephew and son of the petitioners respectively, was there and Shri Verma introduced himself as the Incharge of Demolition Squad of MCF and asked for some amount, not less than rupees ten thousand from the applicant in order to give concession in the matter in dispute. The petitioner told him that it was not possible to give him hush money, since it was a genuine case of which the construction completed one year earlier and moreover the petitioner handed over the Photostat copy of the court order dated 19.9.2000 to the respondent No.1 as to how it could be demolished, in view of this Court order. Shri O.P. Verma had a glimpse of the court order dated 19.9.2000 and after reading it tore into pieces and threatened that he had seen such Court orders in the past and he cared hoot for such orders. He (respondent No.1) returned back by uttering the words that the befitting lesson shall be taught in case needful not done and he went away. The respondent No.1 threatened that the petitioners will face the music in case the requisite amount of rupees ten thousand was not paid. 5. That on 4.10.2000 at about 3 p.m Sh. O.P. Verma brought the J.C.B alongwith Police Foce and the demolition squad personnels of the M.C.FD and immediately ordered to demolish the shops on the western side of 30' wide road, as shown in the site plan attached, which was resisted/objected by the petitioner (Sh. Vinod Bhadana) and Shri Jogender Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh, that the suit property should not be demolished in view of the injunction order granted by the Hon'ble Civil Court. Shri O.P. Sharma asked for the injunction order, which was not readily C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #5# available in the pocket of the petitioner, as the only copy of the order had already been torn out by the respondent No.1 and requested they should wait till the case file is brought down from the residence of the petitioner at House No.1040, Sector 14, Faridabad, but Shri O.P. Verma was highly so anxious and adamant to demolish the constructions of the suit property as earlier as possible despite of the stay order, of the suit property and the J.C.B man hit on the window facing sough, removed staircase and shutter of the corner shop, on the western side of 30' wide road, as shown in the site plan attached with. The staircase on the other side of the eastern side of 30' wide road of the shops had also been demolished by the J.C.B man, as ordered by the respondent No.1. Even the Chhajja parallel to the roof of the south corner shop on the Western side of the site plan attached had also been demolished by throwing away the shutters on one side. In the meantime the petitioner alongwith the help of Jagbir son of Rampal, Chanderpal son of Nobat and Jogender son of Ajit Singh stopped the demolition work of the respondents that for God sake they should wait for the case file to be brought in, which was being brought by his cousin named Satender Bhadana, Advocate from his Faridabad residence and in gap of half an hour. The complete file was taken there, which was shown to the Joint Commissioner (Ms. Sunita Verma) present at the site & asked as to how and why the demolition carried out despite of the stay orders, whereas the respondent No.1, Shri O.P. Verma kept on arguing that there was no stay. The brother of the petitioner named Satender Bhadana asked the Joint Commissioner (Faridabad Old) as to how and why the demolition was carried ouot to the property of the petitioners despite of the court stay order and she observed silence for reasons known to them. Shri O.P. Sharma, immediately suggested that the building towards northern side of the suit property C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #6# belonging to the petitioner be demolished, which was affirmed by the Joint Commissioner, Faridabad Old, that since the Big Force at their command have to be used somewhere and so the suggestion given by Shri O.P. Verma was approved, which was stoutly and strongly opposed by the petitioner as to how thebuilding in question could have been demolished which was constructed about 10-12 years earlier and no notice had ever been issued by the respondents in this regard. After a lot of altercation and discussions with the staff led by the Joint Commissioner and the respondent No.1, the situation of demolition got averted as the staff of respondent No.1 was quite ready and adamant to demolish the suit property for no reasons, justification and rhymes and rather for reasons known to the respondents, as to how the Court order has been dared disobeyed or breached, deliberately & maliciously.” A perusal of paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned trial Court reveals that no reply to the contempt petition was filed by the petitioner. To prove the case for Contempt of Court, the plaintiff examined the following witnesses: i) Constable Vishnu Mitter, Police Post, Surajkund (AW1) ii) Head Constable Suraj Bhan, Police Station NIT, Faridabad (AW2). Iii) Raj Kumar, Ahlmad, Court of learned CJ (JD), Faridabad (PW3) iv) Ravi son of Prem Chand, Photographer (PW4) v) Vinod Bhadana, Special Power of Attorney of Plaintiff (PW5). vi) Satender Bhadana (PW6)” On the other hand, defendants examined the petitioner-O.P. Verma as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A and placed on C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #7# record the documents Ex.D1 to D23 and closed his evidence. AW1 Vishnu Mitter in his statement (P.8) has clearly deposed that he has brought the original record, Roznamcha dated 4.10.2000 about departure/arrival of Lakkarpur, Bharat Vihar regarding demolition by Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and daily diary No.12 & 16 dated 4.10.2000 respectively was prepared by him as per the record. Further, HC Suraj Bhan (AW2) in his statement (P.9) has also deposed that he had brought the original record of DD No.20 & 31 dated 4.10.2000 pertaining to Roznamcha dated 4.10.2000 regarding departure of official for Bharat Area, Suraj Kund and the same was prepared by him. A perusal of cross examination (DW1) of the petitioner itself clearly reveals that the injunction order dated 19.9.2000 was within his knowledge and the relevant part reads as under: “It is correct that the orders passed by Mr. R.K. Dogra, Judge on 19.9.2000, are within my knowledge.” Further, it has been admitted by the petitioner himself in his cross examination that on 4.10.2000, he was present on the spot, the relevant part of which reads as under: “On 4.10.2000, I along with my Joint Commissioner Mrs. Sunita Verma had gone to conduct spot examination in order to see as to whether there is any encroachment on the government land of drain. “ It has further been admitted by the petitioner while appearing as DW1 that on 4.10.2000 before visiting the spot, he had gone to Police Station for taking the police officials and the relevant C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #8# part reads as under: “It is correct that on 4.10.2000, before visiting the spot, we had gone to Police station, because police officials were to be taken along. Again said the Police force was taken along from Suraj Kund Police Post, because land in dispute falls in their jurisdiction.” Petitioner has further admitted his presence on the spot as under: “We may have arrived at the spot at 3.00/4.00 p.m” Although in the affidavit (Ex.RW1/A) filed by the petitioner, it has been denied that the officer of MCF demanded a sum of rupees ten thousand from the plaintiff and it has also been denied that the plaintiff has shown the injunction order to the officer of MCF but in view of his own admission in the cross examination, the assertion in the affidavit is falsified that no injunction order was shown to him. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2011 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the statements of Vinod Badhana and others along with their cross examination in support of her argument that no demolition at the site had taken place on 4.10.2000. In pursuance of the above order, affidavit along with cross examination of PW5 and PW6 have been placed on record as P.14 and 15 respectively and a perusal of the same clearly reveals that on 2.10.2000, petitioner being Incharge of demolition squad came to the spot and told to PW5 that he will demolish the shop unless he is given a bribe of Rs.10,000/-. It is further established that on 4.10.2000 at C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #9# 3.00 p.m, O.P. Verma along with Joint Commissioner, Faridabad (Sunita Verma) along with Police Party were present on the spot and demolished the structure with JCB in violation and wilful disobedience of the injunction order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the learned trial Court. It is further proved that injunction order dated 19.9.2000 was handed over to the petitioner on 2.10.2000 itself. It is also established that ultimately the civil suit was decreed by the learned trial Court and appeal thereagainst has already been dismissed and now regular second appeal is pending in this court. No doubt, the petitioner has tried to make an unsuccessful attempt by placing on record Annexures P.10, P11 & P.12 by way of his application bearing C.M.No.17738-CII of 2011 supported by way of an affidavit dated 24.7.2011 alleging that the removal of the encroachment on 4.10.2000 has been ordered by the Commissioner and supervised by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad but that will not absolve the petitioner of his liability rather strengthen the allegation levelled against the petitioner that there was a demolition on 4.10.2010 in violation of the injunction order dated 19.9.2000. Merely because the demolition was ordered by the Commissioner and supervised by the Joint Commissioner will not ipso facto give a licence to the petitioner to demolish the structure of the plaintiff despite the existence of a valid injunction order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the learned trial Court; rather it shows that the Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner were also privy to the C.R.No.4222 of 2011(O&M) #10# petitioner in committing the contempt of the Court but since the learned trial Court has dismissed the contempt petition against Mrs. Sunita Verma, HCS, the then Joint Commissioner, MC, Faridabad vide order dated 23.2.2001 (P.4) and that order has become final and the appeal filed by Sh. Ankur Gupta, IAS, the then Commissioner, MC Faridabad was accepted by the learned District Judge vide judgment dated 13.6.2011 (P.7) and unfortunately both these orders/judgments have gone unchallenged by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2. Therefore, this court does not deem it appropriate to comment anything about the role of Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner in the demolition carried on 4.10.2000 in which the petitioner is rightly held guilty of committing the contempt of court by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order/judgment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order 13.6.2011 (P.7) and 11.3.2010 (P.5) passed by the learned courts below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law for compliance of its order dated 11.3.2010 (P.5) expeditiously. August 17, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE