- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Sri Ramphal, the petitioner filed the writ petition No. 28293 of 1993 in this Court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the orders dated 3-8-93 and 25-3-89 (Annexures 6 and 7) and a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and the respondents be directed not to demolish the wall/accommodation of the petitioner bearing Municipal No. 164, Civil Lines, Bareilly.
(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that he is a tenant of the accommodation owned by Sri Sewa Ram bearing Municipal No. 164, Civil Lines, Bareilly for a long time. THE accommodation is a very old one. THEre is a registered agreement to sell executed by Sri Sewa Ram and his son Sri Satya Prakash, the owners of the property in dispute to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4, Sri Anil Bhardwaj (alleged contemner) has his hotel just to the east of the petitioner's accommodation. THE contemner also claims that an agreement of sale in his favour exists. THE agreement deed was executed by Sri Satya Prakash, s/o Sri Sewa Ram. THE contemner made several efforts to dislodge the petitioner from his accommodation because his hotel is just behind the accommodation to the east of he petitioner's accommodation and the contemner is likely to be benefitted from the removal of front wall if the respondent No. 4 gets success to get the petitioner evicted from the tenanted accommodation. In order to achieve his aim, he brought respondents 1 to 3 in his favour and collusively got an order for demolition of this accommodation in dispute passed against the contemner, of which the petitioner had no notice. THE contemner did not contest that notice and an order was passed by respondent No. 3 to demolish the wall of the petitioner. On coming to know about this collusive proceedings between the contemner and respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner filed a civil suit No. 269/90 in the court of Civil Judge, Bareilly for a specific performance of contract existing in his favour. A stay order passed by the learned Civil Judge is still operative. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (respondent No. 2), which was dismissed as the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings. THEreafter, the petitioner moved this court in the aforesaid writ for the aforesaid prayers. The contemner Sri Anil Bhardwaj filed his counter affidavit in the main petition on 23-7-95, wherein he has stated that the Original Suit No. 65 of 1992 filed by the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, Bareilly, is pending. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. against the respondents is still pending. Again Suit No. 65 of 1992 is still pending. Earlier suit No. 369 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner. In that suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, C. P. C. is pending disposal. All these petitions and suits cannot run together. Further he has alleged that Sri Sewa Ram has no right to execute a sale-deed in respect or the disputed property in favour of the contemner as he was not the owner. Smt. Elaichi Devi was the real owner. In fact, the petitioner also wanted to purchase this property. But he could not succeed because the property was sold to Sri Sewa Ram by the true owner Smt. Elaichi Devi. The agreement deed in favour of the contemner was cancelled on 12-1-90. The contemner is not interested in demolition of the property in dispute. A copy of the writ petition, without any order of the court, was received by the contemner on 9-5-95. Then only he came to know about the interim order passed by this Court on 23-8-93, which is as follows: "till 30-10-93, parties arc directed to maintain status quo. " Before that the walls in dispute had already been demolished by the respondents 1, 2 and 3. It is said that after getting the knowledge of the writ petition and the order dated 23-8-93, the contemner Sri Anil Bhardwaj, demolished the walls in dispute. Hence Contempt Petition No. 573 of 1993 was moved by the petitioner on 4-4-95. In that petition, the court ordered on 5-4-95 as follows: "in the meantime, respondent is directed to make all endeavours to see that the orders of the court are complied with. " Meaning thereby, that the order to maintain status quo should be allowed to operate. The petitioner further prayed that the respondent be directed not to raise any construction over the land in dispute, which is now an open space. In support of his allegations in the contempt petition, the petitioner admits in paragraph 8 that the contemner got success to get the agreement deed from Sri Sewa Ram in his favour. The fact that contemner had no knowledge of the order dated 23-8-93 for nearly two years is not correct. But he admits that suit No. 269 of 1990 has been filed by him for a specific performance of the contract and the contemner is respondent No. 4 in that suit and the stay order passed by the civil court, is still in operation against the contemner. The contemner demolished the wall on 10-12-94 in defiance of the court's order. Therefore, this petition for contempt was moved on 4-4-95.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the contemner Sri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, dated 25-5-95, the allegations made by the petitioner, had been denied and it has been claimed that only when the contempt petition was served upon him on 9-5-95, he learned about the main petition as well as this contempt petition. Before that, he had no knowledge. Therefore, the question of violating this Court's order does not arise. The petitioner has simultaneously instituted the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2a C. P. C. in the Court of IInd Addl. Civil Judge, which is pending. The Misc. application was instituted on 20-3-95. In fact, the petitioner has been harassing the contemner by filing multiple litigations against him. The property is owned by Sri Suresh Pal Singh by virtue of the sale deed dated 21-4-90. The petitioner filed a suit against Sri Suresh Pal Singh. But later on, he handed over possession to Sri Suresh Pal Singh on 8-12-94 and executed a deed in his favour. He also moved an application in suit No. 269 of 90 fat-withdrawal of the suit as no interest was left with him in this property. Smt. Elaichi Devi had executed a sale deed dated 21-4-90 in favour of Sri Suresh Pal. Suit No. 65 of 1992, filed by the petitioner is still pending. The deponent has not demolished the property and committed no contempt. In fact, it was demolished by the Bareilly Development Authority as the construction had been illegally raised by the contemner. As a law abiding citizen, he complied with the direction of the Bareilly Development Authority. It is unexplained as to why the petitioner did not move any authority immediately on or after 8-12-94, when the property was said to have been demolished. He did not lodge any F. I. R. on 1-3-95, he applied for dismissal of the suit, as he wanted to withdraw it. In fact, on 10-12-94, the petitioner was outside Bareilly. Thus the question of contempt does not arise.;