ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Trial Court dated 6.11.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Etah in Case No. 2 of 2001, (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the order of the Revisional Court dated 17.5.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No. 14 of 2002 respectively.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed the suit for permanent injunction being Suit No.377 of 1985 against the defendants restraining them from taking forceful possession of the property in question, restraining them from cutting away the trees and also restraining them from alienating the said property. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an interim injunction was granted by the Court below directing the parties to maintain status quo and also restraining the parties from alienating the property in question. It is submitted that petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed a writ petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court with respect to the keeping of the accounts of the temple and this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32474 of 1990 vide order dated 18.12.1990 stayed further proceedings in the said suit. He further submits that the respondent defendants in violation of an interim injunction order have alienated some portion of the property which led to filing of an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the order impugned dated 6.11.2001, the Court instead of proceeding to punish the defendant-respondents for committing breach of injunction has merely adjourned the matter in view of stay of further proceedings by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32474 of 1990. Against which, the petitioner filed a revision and revision was also rejected. The claim of the petitioner is that proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are separate proceedings and it would not come in the way of the interim order granted by this Court dated 18.12.1990, by which further proceedings in the suit has been stayed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said writ petition in which interim order was granted being writ petition No. 32472 of 1990 has since been dismissed in default vide order dated 13.10.2008. It is submitted that Writ Petition No. 32472 of 1990 was his writ petition and a recall application has also been filed but the Court below ought not to have waited for final decision in that writ petition as the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are separate proceedings and can go on in spite of any interim order that may be passed in that writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gyan Chand Jain and others Vs. XIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra reported in AIR 1998 All.228 wherein this Court has held that the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A are distinct and separate proceedings than that of the suit. The aforesaid proposition of law cannot be disputed that these are two separate proceedings.
(3.) BUT the fact remains that to proceed in contempt, it is the sole discretion of the Court. The contempt proceedings are essentially between the Court and the contemnor. All that the petitioner can do is to bring to the notice of the Court of the breach of any order of the Court, thereafter it is the total discretion of the Court to proceed in the matter or not. In the present case, the Court below has felt that the said application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would be proceeded with after final decision in the writ petition no. 32474 of 1990. In my view, there is no error in the order and the revisional court has also maintained the order of the Trial Court which also does not appear to be in any way erroneous. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.;