M.C.Jain, J. - (1.) The appellant Anand Prakash Agarwal has come up in appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order impugned is one dated 1,3.2006, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Contempt Application No. 380 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been directed to appear in person for framing of charge(s) against him in the contempt matter,
(2.) Shortly put, the relevant facts are these; The appellant contemnor along with others filed Suit No. 581 of 1994 for permanent injunction against the Executive Officer and President of Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt (applicants in contempt application pending before the Hon'ble Single Judge) in the court of Civil Judge, Meerut. An application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code was also made for restraining the defendants from demolishing the constructions existing on the land in question. The injunction application was rejected by the trial court against which First Appeal From Order (No. 202 of 1995) was filed before this Court. This Court passed the following order on 13.4.1995. Shri A.K. Sinha has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. He prays for and is granted 3 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have one week thereafter to file the rejoinder affidavit. List this appeal after expiry of the aforesaid period. Meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain the status-quo with regard to the Bungalow No. 210-B, Western Road, Meerut Cantt, Appellants shall also not raise any further construction nor respondents shall demolish any construction.
(3.) So, as is apparent from the above order, the interim injunction also restrained the plaintiffs (appellants) from raising any further constructions. Of course, the defendants were also restrained from demolishing any construction. The applicants before the Hon'ble Single Judge (Cantonment Board) have alleged the violation of the said interim order by the plaintiff/appellant Anand Prakash Agarwal (contemnor) that inspite of the restraint order against him, he continued to make constructions. Notice was issued under Section 185 of Cantonment Act 1924 to the opposite parties as well as to the subsequent purchasers of the land in question (which was sold by the present contemnor/applicant on the basis of power of attorney of other plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 3). They filed appeal under Section 274 of the Cantonment Act which was also rejected. Then Writ Petitions were filed in which interim order had been passed staying the appellate order. It is not necessary to go into the details of the same as they are not necessary for the decision of this contempt appeal before us.;