IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 54 of 2011. Date of decision: 06.07.2011. Surjit Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus Jagdish Chand. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) . This revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 27 of 2009 reversing the order dated 10.03.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Court No.2, Hamirpur in C.M.A. No. 18 of 2002. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging therein that respondent and two others had disobeyed the order dated 12.11.1997 which was made absolute on 20.09.1999. It has been alleged that the stay order was duly served and even Local Commissioner was also appointed and at that time six pillars were raised after the stay order. It has been alleged that orders dated 12.11.1997 and 20.09.1999 have been disobeyed. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 3. The application has been contested by filing reply, it has been stated that the construction of the house of respondent was there on the suit land since June, 1984. The respondent simply removed the roof of old building which was in dilapidated condition and RCC slab was put on the columns keeping the old foundations, walls, doors and windows intact. Rejoinder was filed and stand taken in the application was reiterated. 4. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application and recorded a finding that respondent has violated the orders dated 12.11.1997 and 20.09.1999. The property of the respondent was ordered to be attached. In appeal, learned District Judge on 1.3.2011 set aside the order dated 10.03.2009 and dismissed the application, hence revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record. In the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, no specific date of service of respondent and violation of order dated 12.11.1997 read with order dated 20.09.1999 has been pleaded. AW-1 Surjit Kumar in his statement has again not stated when the stay order was served on respondent and when he violated the stay order. AW-3 Arati Sood, Local Commissioner, has proved report Ex. AW3/A. As per report Ex. AW3/A, the Local Commissioner visited the spot on 13.11.1997.She has given the description of the construction. It has also been stated in the report that respondent was not present on the spot. Two labourers were working on the spot and they were leveling the place around the pillars. Ex. A-1 is the order dated 12.11.1997 whereby the respondent was restrained from 3 raising construction over the suit land. Ex. AW6/A is the report of Process Server serving the stay order on the respondent on 13.11.1997. It is not clear from the evidence on record whether Local Commissioner visited the spot after the service of respondent on 13.11.1997 or she visited the spot before service of respondent. There is nothing in the statement of RW-1 Jagdish Chand that he was served before the visit of Local Commissioner. 6. The petitioner has come forward with the allegations that the respondent has violated the order dated 12.11.1997. It was for the petitioner to prove that respondent was served and thereafter he raised construction in violation of order dated 12.11.1997. There is no evidence on record that respondent has raised construction in violation of order dated 12.11.1997 after he was served. There is vague material on record in the form of report of Local Commissioner that when she visited the spot two labourers were leveling the place where the pillars were constructed. The alleged disobedience is required to be proved strictly by the person, who alleges disobedience. The learned District Judge after perusing the record has rightly come to the conclusion that no disobedience is made out from the record. The view taken by learned District Judge emerges from the material on record. No case is made out for interference, hence revision dismissed. July 6, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.