Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) ON technicalities notice cannot be issued on this contempt petition as the situation which has been occasioned is the contributing factor. The Civil Judge, Fatehpur continues to give date after date on an application of the petitioner that the injunction which he had issued on May 27, 1986 is being breached by the opposite parties. The application of the petitioner is under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it was moved on August 13, 1990, consequent upon this court having passed orders on August 10, 1990 in contempt petition no. 625 of 1990 the Civil Judge fixed August 25, 1990 as the date. This date was changed to September 12, 1990. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has had another supplementary affidavit filed to intimate the court that this date has been changed to November 6, 1990. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit it has been submitted that the Civil Judge expressed that the application complaining of a breach of the injunction of his court may be taken up along with the suit.
(2.) TWO aspects arise on the contention made in the contempt petition One is that nothing erodes the independence of a court when it is armed with power to look into an allegation of a breach of it's orders and the court will evade the issue, the consequence is whether this court in its contempt jurisdiction can direct the Civil Judge, Fatehpur to either prepone the date or consider the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code, aforesaid, first, before any other proceeding in the suit. Logically a stay order in contempt jurisdiction cannot be issued by this court. The opposite parties may have breached the injunction of the Civil Judge or may be now encouraged to continue to breach it but this situation cannot continue as it is the respect of the court of the Civil Judge which is being compromised. Further, the High Court cannot again direct a litigant to move the appropriate court where the suit is pending under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code instead of filing a contempt petition only to (sic) that the Civil Judge will evade the issue. This then is the record of the suit proceedings. Clearly the Civil Judge needs appropriate directions that the application complaining of violation of the breach of injunction of his court must be considered and not evaded. This direction alone would be in the interest of justice otherwise it will frustrate the very purpose for which Order XXXIX Rule 2-A stands. If the situation continues as it is the opposite parties for from being discouraged may violate the injunction. This Court is, thus, of the view that learned counsel be permitted to convert the contempt petition into a writ petition and seek appropriate directions from that Court which this court cannot grant. This Court cannot bring upon itself to reject the submissions in the contempt petition as the situation is one in which granting adjournments, again and again by the court of the Civil Judge is a contributing factor. An appropriate direction can only be issued by the writ court.
(3.) UPON appropriate changes being made on the format of the contempt petition and having served notice upon the Standing Counsel on consequential reporting let this petition be laid before the appropriate court if possible on Monday next.;