Rajasthan High Court
Gopi Lal vs Govind on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil II Contempt Petition No. 558/2015
In
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.645/2009
Gopi Lal S/o Shri Kalyan Bux, R/o Village And Post Arai, Tehsil
Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Govind S/o Mishri Lal, R/o Village And Post Arai, Tehsil
Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 645/2009
Govind
----Petitioner
Versus
Gopi Lal
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiva Panwar, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
31/01/2022
In S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 558/2015:-
1. Instant contempt petition has been filed alleging
disobedience of stay order dated 28.05.2013 passed in S.B. Civil
First Appeal No.645/2009.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner
filed civil suit for possession which has been decreed in his favour
(2 of 4) [CCP-558/2015]
vide judgment dated 22.09.2009 and there against the non-
applicant-Govind has filed first appeal. During course of first
appeal, this Court passed the following order, protecting the right
of the applicant to use the property in question as also to raise
construction subject to certain observations, without affecting the
rights of parties to be decided in the first appeal.
3. The order dated 28.05.2013 reads as under:-
"The stay petition has already been dismissed
in the present case by order dated 28.02.2012. The
application has been filed by the respondent
contending that the appellant even after dismissal of
the stay petition is creating obstruction in the use of
the property though the suit was decreed in favour of
the respondent.
It is therefore ordered that the appellant shall
not interfere with the peaceful possession and use of
the property of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-
respondent would be free to raise any construction,
but if eventually the appeal is decreed in favour of
appellant, he will not be entitled to claim any equity
and he may have to part with the possession of the
land with the constructed building etc. and would not
be entitled to claim any cost of construction from the
defendant-appellant.
With that direction, the application is disposed
of."
4. It appears from the record that petitioner before filing the
present contempt petition had also filed S.B. Civil Contempt
Petition No.528/2014, which was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 04.12.2014. The petitioner has also approached to
the civil court by filing a civil suit No.16/2010 against the non-
(3 of 4) [CCP-558/2015]
applicant and the civil court passed injunction order dated
11.04.2014 in favour of petitioner. In the civil suit, the specific
issue in relation to the property in question as to whether the
defendants (non-applicant herein) creates hindrance in use and
occupation of the disputed plot to the plaintiff was framed.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after dismissal of first
contempt petition, the non-applicant continued to create
hindrance/disturbance in raising construction as also in use of
property by petitioner, therefore, he filed criminal complaint on
which Police registered a case under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.
against the non-applicant. In that view of matter, it is clear that
non-applicant has flouted the stay order dated 28.05.2013 and
accordingly be punished.
5. The non-applicant has filed reply to contempt petition and
submits that he has not flouted stay order dated 28.05.2013 in
any manner. He further submits that after dismissal of first
contempt petition, this second contempt petition cannot be
entertained. He further submits that applicant himself approached
to the civil court and filed civil suit, wherein specific issue was
framed, but later on applicant has not pursued the said civil suit.
He contends that he is not guilty for disobedience of stay order
dated 28.05.2013 in any manner.
6. Heard counsel for both the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that first contempt petition filed by
applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2014.
Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on proceedings
registered by Police under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. against non-
(4 of 4) [CCP-558/2015]
applicant to draw a presumption that the non-applicant has
flouted stay order dated 28.05.2013. The material which has been
placed on record, is not sufficient to hold and conclude that the
non-applicant has violated the stay order dated 28.05.2013 more
particularly when he has filed reply that he is abiding by the same
and following the same. It is settled proposition of law that the
jurisdiction of contempt can be exercised only when the
disobedience/non-compliance of order is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and further the jurisdiction of contempt can be
exercised sparingly and with due caution. In the present case
there is no sufficient material on record, to hold the non-applicant
guilty for committing deliberate and willful non-compliance of stay
order dated 28.05.2013, therefore, this court is not inclined to
take cognizance of contempt against the non-applicant.
8. However, the dismissal of contempt will not affect rights of
applicant to avail benefits of stay order dated 28.05.2013, by way
of appropriate proceedings available in law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition
stands dismissed. Notices of contempt stand discharged.
10. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
In S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 645/2009:-
Put up before the Bench having Roster.
(SUDESH BANSAL ),J
Saurabh/76-77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
