CR/71/2009 on 13 October 2026

1. Whether the respondents have disobeyed the order of the Court? OPA

2. Relief.

6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the applicants examined Bishan Dass (AW1), Suresh Sahore (AW2), Jugal Kishore (AW3), Mahesh Kumar (AW4), Mahinder Singh (AW5), applicant No.2 Kewal Krishan (AW6) and Ravi Kumar (AW7). The respondent No. 1, Krishan Murari, examined himself (RW1).

7. Learned Trial Court held that the statements of the witnesses, the photographs on the spot and the documents did not prove that any construction was raised on the suit land. Local Commissioner had noticed construction up to the lintel level, but there was no blockade to the passage. The applicants were required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and they had failed to do so. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issue No. 1 in the negative and dismissed the application.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicants filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge Una, District Una (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court held that the respondents were restrained from raising any construction over the site shown, yellow in colour. Therefore, the applicants were required to prove that the construction was raised over the site shown yellow in colour. There was no evidence of this fact. The applicants had also claimed that construction/projection had already been made. Thus, the order did not relate to the construction/projection but related to the passage. There was no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below, the applicants have filed the present revision asserting that the respondents had raised pushta after the service of the stay order and the visit of the Local Commissioner in violation of the Court’s orders. The doors and windows were opened during the pendency of the suit, and this fact was ignored by the learned Courts below. The applicants had produced sufficient evidence to establish the plea taken by them, whereas the respondent No.1 had only examined himself, and his testimony was not sufficient to disprove the applicants' version. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

10. I have heard Mr Aditya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicants and Mr Jai Ram, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. Mr Aditya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicants, submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record. It was duly proved on record that the respondents had constructed a pushta after the service of the ad interim stay order. They had also opened the doors and windows, and these facts were ignored by the learned Courts below. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

12. Mr Jai Ram, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the learned Courts below had rightly held that there was no violation of the order passed by the Court. The applicants were was required to prove that the construction raised by the respondents was on the yellow portion of the suit land. However, there was no such evidence and learned Courts below had rightly dismissed the application. There is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Courts below. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed.

13. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

14. The Court had passed an order on 29.07.1998 that respondents were restrained from raising further construction over the site, shown yellow in colour till 10.09.1998. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court had rightly held that there was no prohibition on raising construction, but the respondents were only restrained from raising construction over the site shown in yellow in the site plan. The application does not mention that the construction was raised on the site shown in yellow in the site plan.

15. Bishan Dass (AW1) proved the record. Suresh Sahore (AW2) went to the spot before the construction had taken place. Jugal Kishore, Registration Clerk (AW3), proved the certified copy. Mahesh Kumar (AW4) proved the site plan. He admitted in his cross-examination that the site plan was not prepared in his presence. Mahinder Singh (PW5) took the photographs. None of these witnesses deposed about the portion shown in yellow in the site plan, and their testimonies do not establish the applicants’ case that the respondents had violated the order of the Court.

16. Kewal Krishan stated in para 3 of his affidavit that the respondents had constructed a 1.5-foot-wide pushta which led to the reduction of the gali by 1.5 feet. They had also opened the doors and windows in violation of the order issued by the Court. His testimony does not refer to the yellow portion of the site plan and does not show that the construction was on the portion mentioned in the order.

17. Ravi Kumar (AW6) stated that a protection slab was constructed, which was mentioned by him in his site plan. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was not aware of the site plan filed in the suit. Thus, his testimony also does not show that the construction was raised on a portion mentioned in the order passed by the Court.

18. The applicants had alleged the violation of the order of the Court, which can lead to the attachment/ sale of the property as well as imprisonment. It was laid down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Surjit Kaur vs. Pritam Singh 2003(2) S.L.J. 1487 that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A are quasi-criminal and have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It was observed: -

10. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice that provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code are quasi-criminal in nature and since a person violating the injunction order passed by the civil court or otherwise disregarding the same is liable to be detained in civil prison, therefore, the aforesaid violation or disregarding of injunction order has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the person complaining of such violation. The standard of proof required in such a case would, no doubt, be as is required in a criminal case since the said act of the violator itself entails his detention in civil imprisonment.

19. This position was reiterated in Jameet Singh vs. Raj Kumar 2012(4) Civil Court Cases 844 wherein it was observed: -

6. As a matter of fact, the proceedings envisaged under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are penal in nature and defiance thereof is required to be proved by the party like a criminal case. The petitioner relies upon the photograph mark- A alleged to have been taken by PW1 and also the statement of PW2 Balwant Singh, Pradhan, but their statements do not show that the debris was still lying on the disputed land, whereas Rws.1 and 2 stated that it was cleared from the spot, as directed. In the absence of any cogent evidence pinpointing the disputed land and non-removable debris by the respondent, it stands not proved that the respondent did not comply with the said order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine, so also the pending application, if any.

20. Similar is the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Verma Versus Smt. Shivani Verma & another 2009(1) Cur.L.J.(HP) 274 wherein it was observed: “5…Legally, in case of the defiance of orders or contempt, the onus to prove is heavily laid on the petitioner. It is required to be proved beyond doubt like a criminal case….”

21. No other point was urged.

22. Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the applicants had failed to prove their case and there is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below.

23. In view of the above, the present revision fails, and it is dismissed.

24. The present revision stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

25. The record of the learned Courts below be returned with a copy of the judgment.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge 13th October, 2026 (Chander)