IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2779 of 2006 RAM LACHCHAN THAKUR Versus RAMPRAVESH THAKUR ----------- 8/ 25-08-2008 This case has been filed under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating a proceeding for punishing opposite party -respondent 1st set for alleged disobedience of order of status quo passed by this Court on 03.04.2006 in S.A.No.530 of 1998. Allegation against opposite party, who was respondent first party in the second appeal, is that in spite of full knowledge of the aforesaid status quo order of this Court, he has demolished a portion of the residential house over plot No. 436 and is intending to demolish the other portion of the house with the sole object of removing the petitioner from his ancestral house. The violation alleged is of two kinds, one is for demolition of residential house and the other is of cutting away and selling a mango tree and a jack-tree. With respect to the first alleged violation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having no way out he informed the police who came to the spot and in the enquiry report ( Annexure-2) it was said to have been found that the house has been constructed upto linter level and the opposite party is adamant for further construction and when the petitioner objected, the opposite party started quarrelling. On the other hand the opposite party has specifically denied the said allegation stating that the demolition work had already been taken place before the supplementary affidavit was filed on 03.08.2005 in injunction matter and in fact some portions were required to be refurnished and re-constructed for the structural soundness of the house and the entire re-structuring and redesigning - 2 - was near completion and only the roof had to be cast. It was also claimed that due to the order of status quo the opposite party stopped the casting work of the roof although it is causing great harm and difficulties to him due to which he had filed a petition in the second appeal for vacating the order of status quo. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent from the petition that the allegation is that a portion of the residential house has already been demolished but no date of demolition has been given either in the petition or in the report of the police. Furthermore the statement of the petitioner in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the petition is quite at variance with the police report. In the said circumstances and in view of the statement made by the opposite party in paragraph-8 and 9 of his counter affidavit , the said claim of the petitioner appears to be frivolous and baseless. So far the second alleged violation, with respect to cutting away and selling mango tree and jack-tree is concerned, although the petitioner has stated that the said tree was cut away on 15.10.2006 but no date of its selling away has been given nor any police report in that matter has been produced although the petitioner has stated that they approached the police to seize the said trees. Furthermore, the opposite party in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit has completely denied the said allegation and has categorically stated that no tree has been cut by him after passing of order of status quo by this Court nor he has sold away any of the trees after the said order. It is also stated by the respondent first party that he has highest regard for the orders of this Court and he cannot even dream of disobeying any order. In the said circumstances there is no material at all to support the claim of the petitioner with regard to cutting away and selling the trees and hence the said allegation also appears to be frivolous and baseless. - 3 - In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this petition is dismissed. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)