Rajasthan High Court
Ramswaroop S/O Pyare Lal vs Uday Singh S/O Shri Raghunath on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 164/2018
Ramswaroop S/o Pyare Lal, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Gram
Khoh Tehsil Deeg District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
Uday Singh S/o Shri Raghunath, R/o Gram Khoh Tehsil Deeg
District Bharatpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.D. Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/03/2022
By way of this revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC,
petitioner-plaintiff is assailing the judgment dated 04.07.2018
passed in appeal No.3/2016 by the Additional Session Judge, No1.
Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby and whereunder the appellate
court quashed the punishment order passed against the
respondent under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC holding him guilty for
flouting the stay order & sentencing him for simple imprisonment
of 15 days.
This is a case where the petitioner filed a civil suit for
permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary
injunction, to restrain the respondent-defendant not to open any
window, drainage towards east side where the petitioner's
property is situated.
(2 of 3) [CR-164/2018]
It appears that the trial court, on the application for
temporary injunction, passed ad interim injunction order dated
21.06.2014. The petitioner alleged disobedience of ad interim stay
order dated 21.06.2014 by the respondent and filed an application
under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC. The trial Court, recorded evidence
of both parties and vide order dated 25.04.2016, found
respondent guilty for committing disobedience of stay order and
punished him for simple imprisonment of 15 days. The respondent
preferred appeal their against and appellate court, after re-
appreciation of the evidence and more particularly considering the
report of Court Commissioner, has set aside the punishment order
vide judgment dated 04.07.2018. The petitioner has impugned the
judgment dated 04.07.2018 by way of this revision petition.
By perusal of impugned judgment dated 04.07.2018, it is
clear that the appellate court has considered the report of Court
Commissioner and observed that there is no convincing evidence
on record to show the disobedience of the stay order dated
21.06.2014. The appellate court has observed that the trial court
has passed the punishment order, drawing a presumption that
respondent has flouted the stay order, while raising construction of
his plot in between 28.12.2014 to 02.01.2015. The position of site
as existed prior to passing of ad interim stay order dated
21.06.2014 is not available on record. Therefore, the appellate
court has considered the material on record and exercised its
jurisdiction to quash the order of contempt.
It is trite law that the proceedings of contempt are akin to
the criminal proceedings and the charges of contempt should be
proved beyond doubt. The jurisdiction of contempt be exercised
with caution and sparingly and not in a routine manner. From the
(3 of 3) [CR-164/2018]
perusal of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2018, it nowhere
reveals that the appellate Court has committed any material
irregularity/illegality or jurisdictional error in setting aside the
order of contempt. Hence, no interference is called for with the
order of appellate court within the scope of Section 115 CPC.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
