28 ll Civil Revision No 6881 of 2010 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No881 of 2010 Dateof 2011 Amrik Singh Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh and others espondents jQ 0 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA 0 PresentleMrManish Kumar Singla Advocate for the petitioner I C5 M SarjuPuri Advocate for respondentsnoand3 I RAJIVE BHALLA J Z 0 The petitionerimpugns an order dated 4201 0 passed by I the Civil Judge 1Junior Divisionl Khanna discharging responderltsl C Z to 3 Ill proceeding initiated pursuant to a petition filed by the under Order 39 Rule 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure 00 1forshort the Code1 3 Z The petitionerfiled a suit for declaration that he is owner itl Qe possessionof the Iand in dispute and the house as detailed in the plaint The petitioner also prayed for Issuance of a permanent injunctionto restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property and dispossessinghim from the suit Iand during pendency of the suit Vide order dated 23112002 the CivilJudge 1Junior Divisionl Khanna directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession but granted Iibertyto the defendants to alienate the propertyin dispute with prior permission of the court The petitionerclaims that he filed an application before the Kumar Suresh 2013.01.08 17: 13 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 29 Civii Revision No 6881 of 2010 2 TehsildarPayal informing him of the status quo order The Naib Tehsildar Payal directed the Patwari to take necessary action The Patwari made an entry tll roznamcha no 316 dated 182004 recordingthe order of status quo The defendants however sold the suit Iand The petitionerfiled an applicationunder Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code impleading the vendor the vendee and respondentsno 1 to 3 the officers who allowed the sale of their iand as parties The 1r trial Court summoned the respondentsbut vide order dated l2010 0 struck off the names of respondentsnol to 3 on the groundthat they 0 are not partiesto the suit I 45 Counsel for the petitionersubmits that though an injunction I operatesin personem but any person who knowing of an injunction Z aids and abets a party ltl committinga breach iS equally iiable for C4 breach of injunction The question whether respondents nolto3 I were aware of the injunction or aided and abetted the defendants in violating the restrai nt order has to be decided on the basis of Z evidence to be add uced by the petitioner The order passed by the QO trial court discharging respondents no1 to 3 is premature and 7 Z therefore a nullity Reliance for these arguments IS placed upon a tl Division Bench judgment of this court reportedas Shakuntla Yadav versus Yadvinder Singh 199831RCR 1Civill395 Counselforrespondents no 1 to 3 however submits that as these respondents were notaware ofthe injunction and are not partiesto the suit their nameswere rightly struck off from the array of respondents It IS further submitted that the entry Itl the rapat roznamcha does not refer to any stay order and is even otherwise incomplete have heard counsel for the parties and perused tho Kumar Suresh 2013.01.08 17: 13 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30 1 Civil Revision No881 of 2010 3 order The order dated 42010 passed by the trial court striking off the names of respondents n1 to 3 from the array of respondentsreads as followsl 44 The present petition is filed againstResp No 1 tO 4 WhO were partyto the suit No84 dated 23111102 but Resl No 56 8 7 were not party to that suit Order 39 R 2 A fastens Iiabilityon the partieswho disobey the breach of injunction 1 Resp No 56 8 7 werenot partiesto the suit Therefore O 0 39 R 2A does not Iie against Resp 567 Therefore the name 0 of Resp No 56 8 7 are struck off UlO 1 R40 21CPC Now I C5 RespNo3 be summoned upon filing of correct address for I 2311 Oll O I9 Z Apart from the fact that order is cryptic the reasons assignedwhile striking off the names of respondents Il O 1t03 are not tenable It is true that an injunctionoperatesin personem but a I personwho aids and abets the violation of an injunction is Iiable as Z if he were a party to the suit In cases where parties are restrained 00 from alienating the suit Iand it IS the d uty of a Tehsilda rISu 1 e7 Z RegistrarIRegistra r to ensure that such an order is not violated A tl reference in this regard may be made to an extract fronl the judgmentin Shakuntla Yadav Versus Yadvinderghsse 1supral7 41 77EVen though objection by an some of the respondents has been taken that they were not party to the writ petition in which stay was granted but in view ofthe settled Iaw that it is not necessary that a chargeof contempt can successfullybe Ievelled against only a partyspondent and that all those who are privy be in assertion of their OWll right or supporting someone else who might assert Itis Kumar Suresh 2013.01.08 17: 13 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 31 3 Civil Revision No881 of 2010 4 right are all Iiable for contempt Reference in this regard maybe made to a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court tn Narapa Reddy V Jagarlamud i Chandramouli and others AlR 1967 AP 219 wherein it was heidthat it is now well settled that the Court has undoubted jurisdiction to commit for contempt a person not included in an injunction andlor not a party to the action who knowing ofthe injunction aids and abets a defendant in cotnmittinga 0 breach of it All ingredientsof civil contempt as defined in 0 Section 211bl of the Contempt of Courts act 1 971 have I C5 been made out I hold all the respondents I guiltyof contemptcharge Ievelled against them Il Z 78 xx XX XX XX 4t 73efore however the court may part wiUl the orders in this contemptpetition it would Iike to mention that I C0 whereas respondents 6 to 12 had some interest in the Z matter insofar as respondents 1 to 5 are concernedthey C were supposedto uphold the Iaw They were responsible ror 1m3 Z maintainingthe dignity of the Courts and to protect those 0 who were in distress and needed help Protectors of Iaw Itl the present case became breakers thereof Holding high positions where they could come to the resc ue of the petitioners they chose to side with the Iaw breakers Al l entreaties made by the widow of Lal Singh namely Shakuntla Devi to the Deputy Comrnissioller and tlle prlIictl fell on deaf ears It was naturally to happen as official respondents 1 to 5 had connived with respondents 6 to 12 Ill wrongful iilegal and forcible dispossessingthe petitiorlers Kumar Suresh 2013.01.08 17: 13 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 32 1 Civil Revision No 6881 of 2010 5 fromthe suit Iand despitestay grantedby the Division Bench of this Court in their favour Their act and conduct has to be condemnedin severest words This court does not hesitate even for a second to hold that the official respondents1 tO 5 have just acted contrary to what they were supposedto do By their such act and conduct it is natural that the common would Iose fah in the Administraoi Il man 1 C The judgmentthough pronounced u nder the Contempt of 0 Courts Act applies to proceeding under Order 39 Rule 244 of the C43 Cod The questionwhether respondentsnol to 3 were aware of the I 0 injunction and whether they aided or abetted the violation of the I injunction is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence The Z trial Court had no jurisdictionto strike off the names of respondents l no 1 to 3 from the array of respondents tn a summaryand arbitrary I manner C3 In view of what has been stated above the revision is Z allowed the order dated 492010 is set aside and matter is remitted to QO the Civil Judge 1Junior Divisionl Khanna with a direction to proceed am Z vvith the petition in accordance with Iaw Parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge lnior Divisionl Khanna on 305201 1 May 2011 1 RAJIVE BHALLA 1 VK JUDGE j 1 1 9svll Kumar Suresh 2013.01.08 17: 13 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document