J. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at present is at the stage of admission.
(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that he had filed Suit No. 186 of 1983 in the court of 1st Civil Juge, Kanpur against opposite party no. 1 and others for permanent injunction in which on 13-7-83 the learned Civil Judge passed an ad-interim injunction order restraining the opposite party no. 1 and her associates in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over Sunder Talkies and further directed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The said injunction order continued till the present application was moved on 21-5-84. However, despite full knowledge of the said restraining order of the court, the opposite parties interfered with the possession of the petitioner over Sunder Talkies in question, first on 18-7-83 and next on 13-11-83 and ultimately he was dispossessed between 13-11-83 and 18-11-83 when opposite parties no. 6 to 8 put opposite party no. 4 in possession through his wife Rajwati in possession thereof. It is further alleged in the petition that against interference dated 18-7-83 the petitioner on 27-7-83 had moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC in the court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur, for action impleading all the present opposite parties except opposite party no. 6. On the same day the court had issued notices against all the opposite parties of that application. In pursuance of service of the said notices the present opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 had filed their objection before that court. That the said proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC were being delayed on one or other pretext of the opposite parties with the result that opposite party no. 4 with the help of other opposite parties to the present petition was continuing in possession over Sunder Talkies, although nearly a year has gone by since filing of application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. It is contended that the act of the opposite parties clearly amounted to disobedience of the order dated 13-7-83 of the 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur passed in Suit No 186 of 1983. It is, therefore, desired through the present application to initiate Contempt of Courts proceedings under Section 10/12 of the Act by this Court.
(3.) SINCE the contempt in question was alleged to have been committed by disobeying the injunction order of the court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur and as a matter of fact, it was disclosed in the petition itself that proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC with respect to the disobedience occurring on 18-7-83 were pending in that court a question cropped up as to whether this court should initiate contempt proceedings concerning the said disobedience dated 18-7-83 as well as second disobedience dated 13/18-11-83 or should leave the matter to be dealt with by the court below whose injunction orders were said to have been violated. It may here be conceded at the very out-set that Section 10 of the Act confers jurisdiction, power and authority on this court in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it.;