Judgment:
The Court : This contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of order dated 22nd December, 1998. The case of the petitioners is that in a suit for specific performance an order of injunction was passed on 22nd December, 1998 restraining the defendant from encumbering, disposing of and/or otherwise alienating the subject land. Subsequently the said order was clarified and it was directed that the plaintiff would construct a boundary wall.
Such boundary wall was constructed as will appear from the order dated 19th April, 2000. Subsequently it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the said wall has been demolished and vehicles parked by the alleged contemnor/respondent.
Hence the instant application has been filed and orders sought. None appears on behalf of the alleged contemnor/respondent nor has any affidavit been filed for discharge of Rule in Court. As a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 31st March, 2010 has been served on the petitioners a copy has been handed to Court and the same is kept on record.
Having considered the facts of the case including the affidavit filed by the alleged contemnor/respondent it appears that the boundary wall has definitely collapsed although the reason for such collapse is not known. In fact at a meeting held on 24th April, 2010 when the Receiver visited the said premises several vehicles were found parked in the said subject land.
The parties agreed that the alleged contemnor/respondent would at his own cost construct the wall within ten days and complete within a month from 24th April, 2010. In spite of the said no wall has been constructed till date. Accordingly the alleged contemnor/respondent is directed to take steps to construct the boundary wall forthwith on receipt of this order and complete the same within a week thereof. In the event the aforesaid step is not undertaken, the alleged contemnor/respondent will serve two days of simple imprisonment on the expiry of the time specified for completion of construction. This order is passed as in the order dated 19th April, 2000 which was passed in a contempt application it has been recorded that the boundary wall was constructed. In the event the said boundary wall collapsed, the same should have been brought to the notice of the Receiver.
The alleged contemnor/respondent by not only not bringing the collapsed wall to the notice of the Receiver but parking vehicles on the said land has undoubtedly violated the order dated 22nd December, 1998. It is only to give an opportunity to the alleged contemnor/respondent to remedy the breach that the order for construction has been passed.
At the meeting held on 24th April, 2010 the alleged contemnor/respondent at his own cost agreed to construct the boundary wall within ten days. This is another reason for passing the order this day. While the Receiver appointed by order 24th March, 2009 was seeking to implement the order dated 17th March, 2009, on 6th April, 2009 the alleged contemnor/respondent informed him that he would not use the subject land if the Court so directed him and the said use was temporary.
This is another factor for passing this order this day. In view of the aforesaid this contempt application is disposed of.
The petitioners are directed to communicate this order to the alleged contemnor/respondent.
All parties to act on a Photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.