Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs B. Pass Such Other And Further Orders As ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
14.05.2025
MCC/9950/2025 (Misc. Application)
In
AO No.240 of 2020
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mrs. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the State/ appellant.
2. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the
respondents/applicant.
3. This Misc. Application (MCC/9950/2025) has been
filed by the applicant/ who is respondent in AO No.240 of
2020, with the following prayer:-
"A. To order attachment of the property of the appellant
and Smt. Tripti Bhatt, presently posted as Commandant 40th
Battalion P.A.C., and/or direct that Smt. Tripti Bhatt,
presently posted as Commandant 40th Battalion P.A.C., be
detained in civil prison for such period as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, and to take appropriate action against the
Respondent in accordance with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for willful disobedience and
violation of the injunction order dated 09.04.2025 passed by
this Hon'ble Court in Appeal From Order No. 240 of 2020
titled "Commandant, 40th Battalion P.A.C. Vs. Sita Ram and
Another".
B. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent, to uphold
the majesty of the law and the dignity of this Hon'ble Court.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to invoke its inherent power under
section 151 CPC and be pleased to direct/ensure enforcement
of the injunction order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in aforesaid appeal, to maintain and uphold
majesty of law and sanctity of order passed by this Hon'ble
Court."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
vide judgment dated 09.04.2025, this Court disposed of AO
No.240 of 2020; that, in paragraph no.26 of this judgment,
the Court had directed that:-
"26. In view of the above observations, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view
that this is the fit case in which, the present Court should
exercise its inherent power under Section of 151 C.P.C. for
meting out substantial justice, thereby restraining the
appellant/defendant from causing any hindrance, obstructions
or interference in the peaceful possession of the
respondents/plaintiffs over the land in question i.e. the suit
property and further restrain the appellant/defendant not to
cause any hindrance and obstructions by himself or his staff
or employees or agents etc., in the construction of the
boundary wall of the suit property constructed by
respondents/plaintiffs. Rather this Court is of considered view
that the appellant/defendant being an important
instrumentality of the State, should see that no other person
also should cause hindrance or obstruction in the
constructions of the boundary wall by respondents/plaintiffs.
If any person causes any obstructions, then the
appellant/defendant may take appropriate steps, as per law
against that person by videographing the acts of such
obstruction or interference and place before the trial court
for appropriate orders."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further
submit that when the applicant went at the suit property on
26.04.2025 to carry out the construction of the boundary
wall, a group of approximately 50-60 personnel of the
Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), as visible in
photographs (Annexure No.4 to application) dressed in civil
clothes suddenly arrived at the spot and not only obstructed
the ongoing work but also forcibly stopped the applicants
from constructing the boundary wall as permitted by the
judgment dated 09.04.2025; that, they resorted to
intimidation, issued threats to the applicants, thereby
willfully, intentionally, contemptuously and knowingly
violated the explicit directions of this Hon'ble Court,
therefore, contempt proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of
CPC for willful disobedience of the Court may be drawn
against them.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would
submit that in paragraph no.27 of the judgment of this
Court the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit within
three months from the date of the receipt of this order,
therefore, the boundary wall should be constructed only
thereafter. However, on the query of the Court she would
fairly concede that mere reading of paragraph no.26 of the
judgment dated 09.04.2025 does not leave any doubt about
the direction of the Court thereby restraining the appellant
in AO No.240 of 2020, respondent hereat from causing any
hindrance and obstructions in peaceful possession of the
applicants over the suit property and construction of
boundary wall to protect the same.
7. This Court in paragraph no.26 of the judgment dated
09.04.2025 had even directed the appellant in AO No.240 of
2020 (respondent hereat), being important instrumentality of
the State, to see that no other person also should cause
hindrance or obstruction in the construction of boundary wall
by the applicants/plaintiffs; that, if any person causes any
obstructions, then the appellant may take appropriate steps, as
per law against that person by videographing the acts of such
obstruction or interference and place before the Trial Court
for appropriate orders.
8. Prima facie, the acts of the appellant/respondent seems
to be contemptuous and wilful disobedience of the restraint
order passed by this Court vide its order dated 09.04.2025.
9. The Commandant of 40th Battalion, Provincial Arms
Constabulary (P.A.C.), on the relevant date 26.04.2025, is
directed to show cause, on affidavit, as to why criminal
contempt proceedings and proceeding under Order 39 Rule
2A of CPC for willful disobedience of the Court may not be
drawn against him and officials.
The Commandant of 40th Battalion (P.A.C.) is further
directed to file the affidavit disclosing the identity of the
police personnel visible in the photographs (Annexure No.4
of the application at page no.46 & 47) before next date of
listing.
If the reply to show-cause notice and affidavit are
not filed then appellant are directed to appear in person.
10. List this case on 22.05.2025.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
14.05.2025
SS
