IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 82 of 2005. Date of decision: 25.02.2009. ______________________________________________________ Waryam Singh. …... Appellant. Vs. Des Raj & Anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate None for the respondents. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the order dated 01.07.2004, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Una, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 13/01/2000, dismissing the application Under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed an appeal and in the appeal, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., the Court was pleased to order status quo at the spot on 13.01.2000. The respondents despite the order dated 13.01.2000, raised construction and disobeyed status quo order. A local commissioner was appointed on 13.01.2000, who inspected the spot and submitted his report. The appellant has prayed for taking action against the respondents in accordance with the law for violating Court order dated 13.01.2000. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. - 2 - 3. The application was contested by filing reply. It was denied that any construction was raised by the respondents. It was also submitted that application suffers from better particulars, in as much as nature and place of construction has not been mentioned. The local commissioner had not visited the spot nor given correct report. The application is false. 4. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application on 01.07.2004, mainly on the ground that property has not been identified. The appellant has failed to establish that the respondents had committed disobedience by raising construction on the suit land, hence, this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Court below has taken a very technical view in dismissing the disobedience application, on the ground that property has not been identified. There is no dispute with respect to the property. The local commissioner vide his report Ext. AW2/A, dated 14.01.2000, has specifically stated that construction was being raised on the spot. The appellant has proved the disobedience by leading cogent evident in the form of his own statement as well as statement of AW-2, Sh. V.S. Mankotia, Advocate, local commissioner and other evidence. 6. In the disobedience application, the order dated 13.01.2000 has not been reproduced nor Khasra number of the land on which construction has been raised that has been mentioned. - 3 - The particulars of construction have also not been given. The appellant has not placed and proved on record order dated 13.01.2000 vide which the Court below had directed the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. A.W.-1, Waryan Singh has stated that he had filed the appeal and in the appeal, stay was granted and the local commissioner was appointed on the same date. The order dated 13.1.2000, Ext.AW1/A is to the following effect: “13.1.2000: Presented by Sh. O.P. Verma, Advocate. Heard. Sh. B.S. Mankotia, Advocate is appointed as L.C. to visit the spot and to report the exact measurement and stage of construction of the defendant on the spot. His fee is fixed at Rs.400/- only to be paid by applicant. Report be called for 14.1.2000. Sd/- District Judge, Una.” The perusal of above order would show that learned District Judge on 13.01.2000 vide Ext.AW1/A, appointed a local commissioner to visit the spot and to report. In this order, there is no direction of status quo to be maintained by the parties on the spot. The order of status quo, if any, on which appellant is relying, has not been placed and proved on record. 7. A.W.-2, V.S. Mankotia, Advocate has stated that he had not given any notice to the parties for his visit to the spot. He has, however, stated that respondent Desh Raj was on the spot. R.W.-1, Desh Raj has stated that nobody came to inspect the spot. He has not disobeyed any Court order. The local commissioner in his report Ext. AW2/A, has not identified the disputed property. The disobedience application lacks material particulars in as much as - 4 - disputed property has not been identified. In the application, the particulars of the construction have also not been given. The status quo order has not been placed and proved on record. In these circumstances, the appellant has miserably failed to prove that respondents have disobeyed status quo order dated 13.01.2000. The Learned Additional District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and has committed no error in dismissing the disobedience application of the appellant. 8. No other point was urged. 9. In the result of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. (Kuldip Singh ), Judge. February 25, 2009. (bhupender)