The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate willful violation of an interim order, which was not established in this case.

Judgment :

1. Instant civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (for short ‘the appellate Court’) in civil appeal No. 19/2002, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 09.04.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil case No. 25/1997, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for breach of the court’s order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction in which temporary injunction application was also filed before the trial Court. The trial Court vide order dated 25.01.1997 directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the reply is submitted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after passing the said order, respondents raised construction over the disputed land. After that, petitioner filed an application for breach of the court’s order, but the trial Court vide order dated 09.04.2002 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 09.04.2002, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court. Appellate Court vide its order dated 18.10.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had led the cogent evidence that respondents had violated the order dated 25.01.1997 and raised construction over the disputed property. So, the order dated 09.04.2002 passed by the trial Court as well as the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the appellate Court be set aside and the respondents be punished for the violation of the order dated 25.09.1997.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

5. Trial Court as well as appellate Court while dismissing the application and appeal clearly mentioned that the petitioner failed to adduce cogent evidence that respondents had willfully and deliberately violated the interim order dated 25.01.1997 and raised construction over the disputed property. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court as well as appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application as well as appeal. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.