IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that for contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, 1908, there must be specific evidence of willful disobedience, and the initiation of legal action by the defendant may not per se amount to contravention of the court order.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. -

I.A. 7181/2017 (u/O XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, 1908)

1. The present Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") has been filed on behalf of the applicants/plaintiffs seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the defendant Nos. 1 to 126 for willful disobedience of the Order dated 19.06.2017.

2. The plaintiffs had filed the Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction on 19.06.2017 against 125 defendants who were the occupants of the suit property situated at Katra Dulia, Chandani Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) and the defendant No. 126/North Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "MCD").

3. It was asserted that the suit property commonly known as Katra Dulia was purchased by Seth Suraj Mal and Seth Babu Lal vide Sale Deed dated 22.03.1936. The suit property comprised of various shops. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 Trust was constituted in respect of the suit property. The shops were occupied by the defendant Nos. 1 to 125.

4. On the night of 22.05.2017, a fire broke out in the suit property, apparently due to short circuit in one of the shops because of which various shops got destroyed and some portions of the suit property fell. The entire structure became completely dilapidated and unfit for use whatsoever. Consequently, the plaintiffs vide Communication dated 02.06.2017 requested the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation to take necessary action since the suit property had been rendered dangerous and was likely to fall.

5. It was further asserted that 16.06.2017, one of the representatives of the plaintiff No. 1 Trust on visiting the site was shocked to know that various persons were carrying out the rebuilding work in the suit property. It was their case. that no work of any nature could be undertaken in the suit property as it could lead to the collapse of the entire building. Therefore, a prayer was made for a Decree of Permanent Injunction for restraining the defendants, their representatives, agents, assigns etc. from undertaking any nature of work and also to restrain the defendants, their representatives, agents, assigns etc. from occupying various portions of the suit property and for Mandatory Injunction against defendant No. 126/North Delhi Municipal Corporation for authorising/directing the demolition of the suit property as the same had become dilapidated and dangerous on account of fire.

6. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on the first day itself in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants herein restraining the defendants from carrying out any reconstructions or repairs in the respective portions of the shops in the suit property.

7. The defendants appeared and some filed their respective Written Statement.

8. Subsequently, the Suit was disposed of on 27.09.2018 in the following terms: -

"1. The present suit is filed on account of a fire that had broken out in the shops at Katra Dulia, situated in the suit property. The following reliefs have been sought in the present suit: -

(i) Pass a decree of permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendants, their representatives, agents, assigns, etc. from undertaking any work, of any nature whatsoever, at the suit property falling in Katra Dhooliyanwala, more specifically detailed in para 3 above:

(ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendants, their representatives, agents, assigns, etc. from occupying any portion of the suit property falling in Katra Dhooliyanwala, more specifically detailed in para 3 above.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs states that the property is more than 100 years old and on account of a fire that had broken there is a possibility of the structure being damaged. He submits that the defendants who are statutory tenants in the premises are trying to carry out renovation work in the garb of repairing th