C.R. No. 4743 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4743 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 29, 2010 Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. ...Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal Goyal and others. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. The plaintiff – petitioner (Punjab Wakf Board) had filed a suit against as many as eight defendants. The suit filed was for the possession of the property in suit which was averred to be of Wakf character and also applied for was the ejectment of defendants therein from that property. There also was a plea for the restraint of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein from recovering any rent from defendant Nos. 3 to 8 therein. Likewise, there was for a plea for the restraint defendant Nos. 3 to 8 therein from paying any rent to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein. The orders were relatable to the property in suit. In the course of the trial, the learned Trial Court passed the following orders on 16.05.2006:- “Heard. Respondents No. 3 to 8 are restrained from paying any more rent to Respondents No. 1 & 2 regarding property in dispute till further orders.” C.R. No. 4743 of 2008 2 The petitioner, thereafter, filed a plea for contempt proceedings against the respondents herein on an averment that in spite of the communication of order dated 16.05.2006 to them, they went over to the above quoted defendants and demanded rent from them. The respondents herein filed a response denying the attributed role and took up a plea that there was no restraint order qua them which they could have violated. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties qua the controversy aforementioned:- “1. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR 2. Whether the respondents have violated the order of the Court dated 16.5.2006? OPA 3. Relief.” The plea raised thereby by the petitioner herein under issue No.2 was negatived. Issue No.1 was also decided against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff -petitioner, argues that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court deserves invalidation as it does not take appropriate cognizance of the statements of AW1 Mohd. Ashraf and AW2 – Rajinder Singh, both of whom had reiterated the averments made in the course of the contempt application. The learned counsel is not on a firmer footing when he so argues. The reason therefor are as under:- It is apparent from the record that the learned Trial Court never ever restrained the respondents herein from realizing rent from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court. In fact, they had not even been C.R. No. 4743 of 2008 3 impleaded as parties thereto. Except the home self-serving statements made by AW1 – Mohd. Ashraf and AW2- Rajinder Singh (the latter was defendant No.5 in that civil suit), there is no independent evidence supportive of the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents herein raised a demand for payment of rent. There also is no acceptable evidence to prove that the stay order had been communicated to the respondents herein. AW1 – Mohd. Ashraf testified, in the course of the cross examination, that he had been informed by AW2 – Rajinder Singh that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had been served with a copy of the stay order on 16.05.2006 itself. However, AW2 – Rajinder Singh conceded, in the course of the cross examination, that he had no idea about when the stay order came to be served upon the Red Cross Society (the respondents herein in all officials of the Indian Red Cross Society, Faridkot). In that view of things, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error on point of appreciation of evidence in negativing the plea raised by the petitioner. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 29, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge