M.S. Liberhan, J. - (1.) The Petitioners have moved this Court for initiating contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience of the order of the trial Court restraining the respondents from demolishing the shops in disputes, except in due course of law.
(2.) The, factual matrix is that the petitioner purchased two plots of land by two different Registered Deeds. One of them is with respect to 422 Sq. Yds. the other is with respect to 211 Sq. Yds. The petitioner applied for sanctioning the an for construction of shops with respect to 211 Sq. Yds. of the land, which was refused. The petitioners, in spite of the refusal; started construction. Notices under section 269 and 270 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 were issued to the petitioners. An order for demolition of the shops was passed on February 13,1989. Show cause notice resulting in demolition was challenged in a suit for injunction with respect to 211 Sq. Yds. on March 28, 1989, in which temporary injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the shop except in accordance with law, was granted on March 29, 1989. The respondents with the Police help demolished the cOnstruction in spite of the alleged stay order to their knowledge. The petitioners. claim that the order of injunction has been wilfully disobeyed.
(3.) The respondents took-numerous defences including the one that in view of provisions of order 39..rule 2-A, Code of Civil Procedure, the contempt proceedings are not maintainable, there was a demolition order, dated February 14,1989, passed in. accordance with law, in,implementat in of which the shops were demolished on June 20, 198V. It was claimed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the-injunction. Thus,: violation of such an injunction order constitutes no contempt;