The withdrawal of a police assistance application does not negate the right to pursue contempt of court, and the court must properly exercise its jurisdiction in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

Heard.

2. Aggrieved against order dated 05.07.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 225-6 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 77-1 of 2020, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been dismissed, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which is pending adjudication on the files of learned Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. as Civil Suit No. 77-1 of 2020. Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are defendants No. 7 and 8 in the suit. Petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith suit for interim injunction against the defendants including respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. On 24.06.2020, an interim order was passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land.

4. Plaintiff complained of violation of interim order dated 24.06.2020 by the defendants. He filed two separate applications before learned Trial Court, one under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for local inspection and another under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for police assistance. On the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Local Commissioner was appointed by learned Trial Court, who inspected the spot on 08.07.2020 and submitted his report whereby he reported new construction having been carried by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the form of twenty numbers of pillars and digging of pits on the suit land.

5. The application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for police assistance was thereafter withdrawn for the reason that after the inspection of spot by Local Commissioner, the work had been stopped by respondents on the spot. The plaintiff filed a separate application for withdrawal of application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be relevant to extract paragraph-4 of the said application as under:-

“4 That after the report of the L.C. the work has been stopped by the respondents on the spot and in case the police execute the order thereafter if the work is restarted by the respondents then the police may refuse to implement the same because as usual the police responds that they had only the order to go one time on the spot and the purpose of passing the order may frustrate.”

6. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, before learned Trial Court on 23.06.2021, with a prayer to refer the matter to this Court as the respondents therein were alleged to have committed civil contempt by disobeying order dated 24.06.2020, passed by learned Trial Court. Evidently, learned Trial Court did not seek any response to the said application from respondents and proceeded to dismiss the same vide impugned order.

7. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, primarily on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted while withdrawing application for police help that the respondents had stopped violating order and thereafter no further disobedience was complained to the Court by the petitioner. Learned Trial Court further held that no particular date or time of disobedience allegedly made by defendants was mentioned in the application. It was also observed that if at the later stage of the suit it was found that any construction had been raised in disobedience of Court’s order, the same could be dealt with under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. On perusal of record it is found that in the application filed by plaintiff under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act it