Civil Revision No.4806 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.8.2010 Ramji Lal and others ...Petitioners Versus Ved Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that the respondent No.1- plaintiff Ved Parkash filed the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendants from cutting the trees standing over the land in dispute. He has also moved an application, for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, which was allotted, by virtue of order dated 11.6.2008. The defendants filed Civil Misc. Appeal bearing No.99 of 19.6.2008, in which, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding cutting and removing the trees in question over the suit land till further orders. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of before a Panel of Mega Lok Adalat, vide order dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure P3). The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to trees standing on the suit land till final disposal of the suit. According to the petitioners (defendants), as the respondents have violated the status-quo order, therefore, the contempt proceedings were initiated against them and their property was sought to be attached and sold in auction. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the reply and pleaded that in fact the Government is digging earth from Saraswati river, so that water may flow in it. He was neither present at the time of passing of status-quo order, nor he has received any notice in this respect. The suit land, where the trees were standing, is owned Civil Revision No.4806 of 2010 2 and possessed by the Gram Panchayat and reserved for Saraswati river. The plaintiff has denied the factum of cutting and removing of the trees. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondent-plaintiff has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the contempt proceedings and prayed for its dismissal. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the District Judge framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- 1) Whether the respondents have violated the order dated 20.6.2008. If so, to what effect?OPA 2) Whether the application is not maintainable?OPR 3) Whether the applicants have no locus standi to file and maintain the present contempt application?OPR 4) Relief. 4. The parties have brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands. 5. The District Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, dismissed the contempt petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, vide impugned order dated 11.6.2010 (Annexure P4). 6. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P4) and filed the present petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the petition. 8. As is evident from the record that having scanned the evidence on record, the District Judge recorded the following findings of fact:- “As per discussion above, the petitioners failed to produce any convincing oral or documentary evidence that the trees were cut and removed by Ved Parkash or Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat. No witness has been examined to prove that Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat has authorised anybody in writing to cut and Civil Revision No.4806 of 2010 3 remove the trees and to sell in the market. It is not the version of the petitioners in their petition as well as in their evidence that the trees were cut and removed personally by respondent no.1 or respondent no.2. It will be pertinent to mention here that the civil suit no.33 dated 19.2.2007/7.2.2008 has already been decided by the leaned trial Court and copy of judgment and decree sheet have been adduced in evidence as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Moreover, the petitioners could not adduce any evidence to prove that service of notice of appeal, the stay application and the impugned order dated 20.6.2008 has been effected upon respondents no.1 and 2. It will be pertinent to mention here that certified copies of summons were placed on the file and an application was filed by the petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence. The petitioners were not willing to examine the process server or any other witness to prove the reports on the summons and in this situation, the application for permission to lead additional evidence and to tender certified copy of the report on the summons, was declined mentioning reasons in detail in the order dated 22.4.2010. In this way, legally and technically, it could not be proved that service was effected upon Ved Parkash respondent no.1 and Gram Panchayat Tatka through its Sarpanch-respondent no.2 on or before 29.6.2008. As respondents no.1 and 2 had also no notice regarding passing of the impugned order, certainly findings cannot be given that they have violated the directions of the Court. On this point of controversy, case law Mishrilal Diwan and another Versus Indubai and another, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 180 (MP) was cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In case law referred above, it was held that in the absence of strict proof of service or knowledge of exparte order, the defendants cannot be held guilty of breach under order 39 rule 2-A C.P.C. On this point of controversy, case law Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Versus Parmodh Singh & Anr., 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 412 (H.P.) also supports the version of the respondents.” Civil Revision No.4806 of 2010 4 9. Neither any meaningful argument has been raised, to assail the indicated findings nor any such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order (Annexure P4) by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Meaning thereby, such findings of fact based on evidence, cannot possibly be set aside, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 2.8.2010 Judge AS