Krishan Behari Rohtagi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case dealt with the petition filed under section 39 rule 2a and 3 of the civil procedure code, 1908, against the order passed by the additional senior sub-judge - the said judge had dismissed the appeal of petitioner against the order, in which he was sentences to civil imprisonment for the period of one month for violation of injunction order -it was observed that no evidence was placed on record to show that any unauthorized construction was made - there was neither allegation or finding by either of the court that order had been violated - in view of the facts it was ruled that the petitioner was not guilty of contempt - accordingly, the order holding the petitioner guilty of contempt was quashed - - it is obvious that the order will become ineffective if the plaintiff does not maintain status quo, but it certainly cannot be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff was directed or bad given the undertaking to maintain status quo.n.n. goswamy, j. (1) this revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-10-1980 passed by the additional senior sub-ordinate judge, delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order whereby he was sentenced to one month's civil imprisonment for violating the injunction order granted by the court on 14-10-1977. (2) the plaintiff-petitioner had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the municipal corporation from demolishing the structure in dispute. along with the suit tie also filed an application for ad-interim injunction order. that application came us for hearing before the learned trial judge on 14-10-1977. the plaintiff made a statement to the following effect: 'the construction shown in the site plan place on the record is old. i will not carry out any changes in the property through repairs during the pendency of the suit in the portion shown in red in the plan annexed to the plaint.'(3) the learned trial judge passed the following order : 'in view of the above statement, the defendant is restrained by way of ex parte injunction from demolishing the existing construction as shown in red in plan annexed with the plaint forming part of property no. 1/1215, bara bazar, kashmiri gate, delhi subject to the condition that the plaintiff will maintain status quo in respect of the existing construction. this order shall not be operative if the unauthorised construction is in progress at site.'(4) the plaintiff was directed to serve this order on the municipal corporation of delhi. some bow the order was not served and on the next date of hearing i.e. on 4-11-1977, the learned trial court vacated the aforesaid order. on the very next date, an application was filed for restoration of the order dated 14-10-1977. on consideration of the application, the learned senior sub judge passed a fresh order to the following effect : 'considering the submission made, the defendant is restrained from taking demolition action in respect of the disputed property. the plaintiff will maintain status quo in respect of the existing construction subject to the condition that the plaintiff will get the defendants served with notice without 48 hours and file affidavit as required under order 39 rule 3 cpc.'(5) from the impugned order passed by the learned senior sub-ordinate judge it appears that the learned senior sub-ordinate judge had not correctly read the order dated 14-10-1977 inasmuch as, it is stated in the impugned order: 'on14-10-1977 itself, the learned trial court granted ex parte injunction restraining the municipal corporation, delhi i.e. respondent no. i from demolishing the existing construction as shown in red in plan annexed to the plaint, forming part of premises no. 1/1215, bara bazaar, kashmiri gate, delhi and further directing the appellant to maintain status quo in respect of the existing construction.'(6) i have already reproduced the order dated 14-10-1977 and i am unable to read any such direction given to the appellant to maintain the status quo. in fact, the order of injunction is against the defendant-corporation and was made subject to the plaintiff maintaining the status quo. it is obvious that the order will become ineffective if the plaintiff does not maintain status quo, but it certainly cannot be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff was directed or bad given the undertaking to maintain status quo. (7) the contention to mr. arun kumar, learned counsel for the respondent is that even if the order dated 14-10-1977 does not amount to a direction, the order dated 5-11-1977 makes it clear that the plaintiff was directed to maintain status quo. i am afraid this contention cannot be accepted because it is not shown as to when the unauthorised construction was made and whether the two courts below were conscious of the order dated 5-11-1977. there is no allegation or finding by either of the courts that the order dated 5-11-1977 has been violated. it is too late in the day to initiate proceedings for contempt of court for violating the order dated 5-11-1977. (8) in the circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order as also the order passed by the learned trial judge under order 39 rule 2a. civil procedure code for holding the petitioner guilty of contempt for violating the order dated 14-10-1977 is set aside. there will be no order as to costs.--- *** ---