Civil Revision No. 88 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 88 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.08.2010 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Joginder Pal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, vide which the petitioner was held guilty of contempt of Court, and ordered to remove the construction raised, in violation of the order passed by the learned trial Court, on an injunction application. The impugned part of the order passed by the learned trial Court reads as under: - “In view of above discussion on foregoing material issue, I am of the opinion that the applicant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent evidence and accordingly, the respondent Ashok Kumar is hereby held guilty of committing contempt of court. The applicant has prayed for attachment of the property of respondent/defendant No.1 Ashok Kumar and for Civil Revision No. 88 of 2010 -2- his detention in civil imprisonment. The applicant has also made a prayer for directing the respondent/defendant No.1 to demolish the construction raised by him in violation of status- quo order and to restore the land in its original condition as per law. As is clear from my above discussion, the respondent Ashok Kumar has raised construction over the suit land despite the order of status-quo illegally and hence, the respondent/defendant No.1 is directed to restore the suit land in its original condition by demolishing all the construction raised by him in violation of the status-quo order 29.05.1996, at his own expenses, within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order, failing which the respondent/defendant No.2 shall be detained to civil imprisonment for a period of two months for violating the court order. Further in the fitness of the thing, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent/defendant No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- rupees fifteen thousand only) to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which the said amount of compensation shall be recovered by way of attachment and sale of the property of respondent/defendant No.1. File, after needful, be consigned to the record- room.” Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground, that the learned trial Court misread the order passed, to record the finding of the contempt of court, as there was no order of status quo in this case. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 29.5.1996, which reads as under: - “Plaintiff – applicant has filed application for appointment of local commissioner. Copy supplied to the other party, who has pleaded no objection. Heard. Since other party has got no objection and in order to bring the existing position on record, Sh. Pawan Kumar, Advocate is appointed as local commissioner in this case, with the direction to visit the suit property after Civil Revision No. 88 of 2010 -3- giving due notices to both the parties and to report about the existing position thereof, to this court on or before 31.8.96 the date fixed. Ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 requested a date for filing of written statement and which is granted for 31.8.96. Defendant no.1, vide his statement recorded separately, has stated that he will not raise further construction over the suit property. In view thereof, the injunction application stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- 31/5/96 ACJ (Sr. Divn./29.5.96)” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that in view of the final partition, the area, on which the construction was raised, had fallen to the share of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended, that the order of final partition has been stayed by this Court. In spite of the offer made to the petitioner, he has refused to comply with the order, to remove the construction raised in violation of injunction order. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is misreading of the order, also cannot be sustained, as the order reproduced above would show that an undertaking was given by the petitioner in Court, that he will not raise any further construction on the property. In view of the undertaking the application for injunction was disposed of by the Court. The petitioner has, thus, violated the undertaking given to the Court by raising construction. It is a prima facie case of disobedience of the order of injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Civil Revision No. 88 of 2010 -4- judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 834, to contend that when an interim order is disobeyed, the contempt or penal proceedings do no lie, as the aggrieved party has a remedy to file execution. The process of execution is different from the action for disobedience or contempt. The reliance on this judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is totally misconceived. It cannot be disputed, that disobedience of final order of injunction is executable under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas disobedience of the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be dealt with under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is in the nature of contempt proceedings. It is under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to pass an order to enforce the order of injunction. This is precisely what has been done in this case. No ground is, therefore, made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 30, 2010 R.S.