Allowed

Amrik Singh v. Gurmit Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2011CR/6881/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside a trial court order that struck off respondents not parties to the suit. The Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss respondents who may have aided the violation of an injunction and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 4.2.2010 striking off respondents is set aside; matter remitted to the trial court to proceed legally.

Amrik Singh Vs Gurmit Singh etc. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

jQ 0 0 I C5 I Z

0 I C Z 00 3 Z Qe

Civil Revision No 6881 of 2010

¶6

¶7

INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

¶8

Civil Revision No881 of 2010 Dateof 2011

Amrik Singh

Petitioner

Versus

Gurmit Singh and others

¶13

espondents

¶14

CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶15

PresentleMrManish

¶16

Kumar Singla Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

M SarjuPuri Advocate for respondentsnoand3

¶18

RAJIVE BHALLA J

¶19

The petitionerimpugns^an order dated 4201 0 passed by the Civil Judge 1Junior Divisionl Khanna discharging responderlts l to 3 Ill proceeding initiated pursuant to a petition filed by the under Order 39 Rule 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1forshort the Code1

¶20

a suit for declaration that he is owner itl

¶21

The petitionerfiled possession^of the Iand in dispute and the house as detailed in the plaint The petitioner also prayed^for Issuance of a permanent injunction^torestrain the defendants from alienating^thesuit property and dispossessinghim from the suit Iand during pendency^ofthe 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 Kumar Suresh JOYTI RANI

¶22

2013.01.08 17: 13 2016.03.28 16:24 propertyTrue ScannedCopy of Thein dispute with prior permission^ofthe court I attest to the accuracy and

¶23

Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

¶24

The petitionerclaims that he filed an application before the

1r 0 0 I 45 I Z

C4 I

Z QO 7 Z tl

Civii Revision No 6881 of 2010 2 Tehsildar^{Payalinforminghim} 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 recording^theorder of status quo The defendants however sold the suit Iand The petitioner^filed an applicationunder Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code impleadingthe vendor the vendee and respondents^no 1 to 3 the officers who allowed the sale of their iand as parties The trial Court summoned the respondentsbut vide order dated l2010 struck off the^names of respondentsnol to 3^on the groundthat they are not partiesto the suit

¶30

Counsel for the petitionersubmits that though^an injunction operatesⁱⁿ personem but^anyperson who knowing of^an injunction aids and abets a party^ltl committinga breach iS equally iiable for breach of injunction The question whether respondents nolto3 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 evidence to be add uced by the petitioner^The order passed by^the trial court discharging respondents no1 to 3 is premature and therefore a nullity Reliance for these arguments^IS placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this court reportedas Shakuntla Yadav versus Yadvinder Singh 199831RCR 1Civill395

¶31

Counselforrespondents^no 1 to 3 however submits that as these respondents^were notaware ofthe injunction and are not parties^tothesuit 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

¶32

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Kumar Suresh incomplete2013.01.08 17: 13True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarhhave heard counsel for the parties^and perused tho

0 0 I C5 I

Z 00 e7 Z tl

1 Civil Revision No881 of 2010 3

¶41

order The order dated 42010 passed by the^trialcourt

¶42

strikingoff the names of respondents n1 to 3 from the array of respondents^reads as followsl

¶43

44 The present petition is filed against Resp No 1^tO 4^WhO were party^tothesuit No84 dated 23111102 but Resl No 56 8^7were not party to that suit Order 39 R 2 A fastens Iiability^onthe partieswho disobey the breach of injunction Resp No 56 8 7 werenot parties^tothesuit Therefore O

¶44

39 R 2A does not^Iie against Resp 567 Therefore the^name of^RespNo 56 8 7^are struck off UlO 1 R40 21CPC Now

¶45

Resp^No3 be summoned upon filing of correct address for 2311 Oll O I9

¶46

Apart^from the fact that order is cryptic the reasons assigned^{whilestrikingoffthe} names of respondents^Il O 1t03 are not tenable It is true that an injunctionoperates in personem but a person^{whoaidsandabetstheviolation} of^an injunction is Iiable as if he were a party to the suit In cases where parties are restrained from alienating^the suit Iand it IS the d uty of a Tehsilda rISu 1 RegistrarIRegistrar to ensure that such an order is not violated A reference in this regard may be made to an extract fronl the judgment^inShakuntla Yadav Versus Yadvinderghsse 1supral7

¶47

41 77EVen though an objection by some of the

¶48

respondents^hasbeentaken that they^were not party to the writ petitionⁱⁿ which stay^was granted but in view ofthe settled Iaw that it is not necessary that a chargeof contempt

¶49

can successfullybe Ievelled against only^a partyspondent

¶50

Kumar Suresh2013.01.08 17: 13and that all those who are privy be in assertion of their JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:24 OWll

¶51

True ScannedCopy of The I attest to the accuracy and

¶52

Original integrity of this document

¶53

PHHC,Chandigarhrig^ht or supporting^someone else who might assert Itis

0 0 I C5 I

I C0 Z C 1m3 Z 0

3 Civil^Revision No881 of 2010

¶59

¶60

right are all Iiable for contempt Reference in this regard may^bemade to a Division Bench judgment^oftheAndhra 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 jurisdictionto commit for contempt^a person not includedⁱⁿ an injunctionandlor not a party to the action who knowing ofthe injunctionaids and abets a defendant in cotnmitting^a breach of^it All ingredientsof civil contempt as defined in Section 211bl^of the Contempt of Courts act 1⁹⁷¹ have been made out I hold all the respondents guiltyof contemptcharge^Ievelled against^them Il

¶61

4t 73efore however the court may part wiUl the orders in this contempt petition^itwould Iike to mention that whereas respondents 6 to 12 had some interest in the matter insofar as respondents^1to5 are concernedthey

¶62

were supposedto uphold the^Iaw They^were responsible^ror maintainingthe dignity of the Courts and to protect those 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 Kumar Suresh JOYTI RANI 2013.01.08 17: 13respondents 1 to 5 had connived with respondents 6 to¹² 2016.03.28 16:24^Ill

¶63

True ScannedCopy of The I attest to the accuracy and

¶64

Original integrity of this document

¶65

PHHC,Chandigarhwrongful iilegal^and forcible dispossessingthe petitiorlers

¶66

¶67

1 Civil Revision No 6881 of 2010

1 C 0 C43 I 0 I

Z l I C3 Z QO am Z

from^thesuit 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^theirsuch act and conduct it is natural^thatthe common man would Iose fah in the Administraoi Il

¶72

The judgmentthough pronounced^u nder the Contempt of

¶73

Courts Act applies to proceeding under Order 39 Rule 244 of the Cod The question^whether respondentsnol to 3^were aware of the injunctionand whether they aided or abetted the violation of the injunction is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence The trial Court had no jurisdictionto strike off the names of respondents

¶74

no 1 to 3 from the array of respondents^tn a summaryand arbitrary

¶75

manner

¶76

Iⁿ view of what has been stated above the revision is allowed the order dated 492010 is^set aside and matter is remitted to the Civil Judge 1Junior Divisionl Khanna with a direction to proceed vvith the petition in accordance with Iaw

¶77

Parties^are directed to appear before the Civil Judge lnior

¶78

Divisionl^Khanna on 305201 1

May²⁰¹¹ VK

1^RAJIVE BHALLA 1 JUDGE

¶83

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document