Gujarat High Court
Sheth Samvegbhai Arvindbhai ... vs Ashvin Singh Harendra Singh ... on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/MCA/192/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 192 of 2021
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 378 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 192 of 2021
=============================================
SHETH SAMVEGBHAI ARVINDBHAI LALBHAI & 6 other(s)
Versus
ASHVIN SINGH HARENDRA SINGH SARVAIYA & 5 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI(5950) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
for the Opponent(s) No. 4,5,6,7
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3
MR. NAVIN PAHWA, SENIOR COUNSEL THAKKAR AND PAHWA
ADVOCATES(1357) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 01/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR)
[1] This contempt proceedings is an offshoot of Misc.
Civil Application No. 378 of 2020, which has been disposed
of by us by order of even date. In other words, this
contempt proceedings have been initiated contending that
in Misc. Civil Application No. 378 of 2020 an order came to
be passed restraining the contemnor from carrying out
C/MCA/192/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
any construction activity and said order has been violated.
Even in the present case as was done in the previous case
a report is placed on record by the Taluka Panchayat
Office as per Annexure-E under which it is stated that
there has been a construction, namely, gates of metal grill
has been fixed; the construction of Avedo is new one; and
a wooden pillar with a cot / swing is made and flooring of
the said area is constructed by use of stone and cement.
[2] However, Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent - contemnor while refuting
the said allegations would contend that what was
prevented or prohibited was only construction activity and
there was no prohibition or restraint order preventing the
first contemnor from securing his property by installation
of a grill or metal gate and even the Avedo which has
been constructed is for providing drinking water for
cattle / animals belonging to the first contemnor and the
wooden pillars with a cot / swing has been put up for the
personal use of the first respondent and it would not fall
within the four-corners of "construction of a structure".
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.
C/MCA/192/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
The order which has been passed in Misc. Civil Application
No. 378 of 2020 on 24.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 was in
terms of paragraphs 13 (C) and 13 (E) specified in Misc.
Civil Application No. 378 of 2020, which was for removal /
demolition of alleged illegal construction after the order
dated 12.09.2018 and / or 24.07.2020, 29.07.2020 and
05.08.2020 and to restore the original position of the land
and as also to direct the first respondent to maintain
status quo. Whether in a contempt proceedings such
directions could have been issued or not an issue which
has been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of V. Senthur and Another versus M. Vijayakumar,
IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu, Public Service
Commission and Another reported in 2021 SCC
Online SC 846 vide paragraph No. 15, whereunder it is
held that court examining the plea of contempt will not
travel beyond the original judgment and direction. It is
also held that neither would it be permissible for the court
to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which
are not to be found in the original judgment and order. In
other words, it has been held that Court examining the
C/MCA/192/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
plea contempt would go with blinkers, namely, as to
whether the order, which is alleged to have been violated
has in fact is violated or not.
[3] At this juncture, Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior
counsel appearing for the first contemnor would submit
though there is no violation of the order, namely, no
structure has been put up by first respondent, he would
hasten to add that the grill gates or steel gates which has
been put up to secure the property to the first respondent
would be removed within four weeks from today and in
the meantime, the first respondent would seek for
appropriate orders being passed in the Special Civil
Application No. 14079 of 2018 and in the event of no
protective order is extended to the first respondent in said
Special Civil Application No. 14079 of 2018, the said gate
would be removed.
[4] It is made clear that in view of the undertaking given
by Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel that Avedo
and the swing would be removed or dismantled at the cost
of the first respondent within two weeks from the date of
C/MCA/192/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
order passed by the learned Single Judge in the event of
the first respondent not succeeding in the pending
proceedings. He would submit that undertaking affidavit
to the said effect would be filed within one week from
today in these proceedings. Placing his submissions and
undertaking on record and without expressing any opinion
on the merits particularly in the background of the original
proceedings, namely, Special Civil Application No. 14079
of 2018 still being pending before the learned Single
Judge. Hence, contempt proceedings stands closed.
[5] However, we reserve liberty to the complainant to
revive this contempt petitions in the event of undertaking
as given to this Court is not complied subject to the
observations made hereinabove.
[6] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
