IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2221 of 2006 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Major Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus Harnam Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dabwali and the order dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Civil Judge. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration before the trial Court. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure also came to be filed. The trial Court vide its order dated 30.09.1998, granted injunction in the following manner:- “The stay application of the plaintiff is hereby accepted with no order as to costs. The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering into the street in question in the manner stated above or in any other manner. The gate already opened by the defendants at point-B as shown in the site plan prepared by the L.C. In the disputed street is hereby ordered to be closed till the final disposal of the suit. 10. The Court also directed restraining the plaintiff from interference in PARNALA and drain running out from the street in question.” Civil Revision No.2221 of 2006 -2- This order of injunction attained finality. Respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code seeking proceedings for contempt against the present petitioners and others for violation of the injunction order. The trial Court after obtaining objections in the application framed following issues:- “1 Whether the respondents have willfully and intentionally disobeyed the injunction order of the civil court dated 30.09.1998 and thus are liable to be punished accordingly? OPP. 2 Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPE. 3 Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPR. 4 Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Relief.” Both the parties were allowed to lead evidence. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided issue No.1 against the present petitioners holding them guilty for violation of the injunction order. Consequently, the trial Court imposed penalty of civil imprisonment for a period of three months on petitioners No.1 & 2 namely Major Singh and Baljit Singh whereas the other defendants against whom the allegations of disobedience of the Court could not be proved were let off. Petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who dismissed the appeal while affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid two orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. (1). The allegations are required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt as the violation of the order of injunction constitute criminal contempt. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as Lakhbir Singh Versus Harpinder Singh, 2003(4) Recent Civil Reports, 162. No doubt in this case, a single Bench of this Court has observed that the violation has to be proved Civil Revision No.2221 of 2006 -3- beyond reasonable doubts as the proceedings are criminal in nature. It is accordingly contended by learned counsel that the same para meters are required to be adopted as for criminal cases. This contention is totally misconceived. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 define both civil as well as criminal contempts under Section 2(b) & (c) respectively, the same are reproduced hereunder:- “2 (b)- “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; ( c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; From the perusal of the allegations, it is clear that violation of an injunction order does not amount to a criminal contempt and falls within the purview of civil contempt. I respectfully record my disagreement with the judgment relied upon by petitioners. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that punishment for a civil contempt is in the discretion of the Court. In this regard, suffice to say that the trial Court has exercised judicial discretion and decided to impose the punishment of imprisonment upon the petitioners on the basis of the evidence recorded and holding that the contempt is proved against the petitioners. Once a Court has exercised judicial discretion in a particular manner, it is not appropriate for the revisional Court to interfere with the exercise of the judicial discretion unless it is established that the exercise of the judicial discretion was inappropriate or unwarranted in any manner. This contention also deserves to be rejected. From the interim order, it appears that the respondents were required not only to refrain themselves from interfering in the street but also Civil Revision No.2221 of 2006 -4- directed to close the door. Petitioners in their response have admitted before the trial Court that they never closed the door. Other allegations against the petitioners that they demolished the door have also been established on the basis of the evidence. This Court is not required to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below unless it it established that the findings are perverse. I do not find that there is any perversity in the findings. The appellate Court has concurred with findings recorded by the trial Court in proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code. There is no reason to interfere in the findings recorded. However, there is one aspect, which needs consideration. The suit filed by the respondents has finally been dismissed. As a natural consequence of that the injunction order cannot survive but the facts remains that the petitioners have violated the order of injunction during the period, it remained in operation. Thus, the contempt is constituted in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the impugned order is modified and in stead of the penalty of civil imprisonment for a period of three months, the same is converted into fine of Rs.2000/- to each of the petitioners. They will deposit the fine within a period of four months before the trial Court, failing which, petitioners shall be liable for contempt of the Court for not depositing the fine. 13.10.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes