Order 39 Rule 2A CPC requires strict proof of willful disobedience of injunction as penal provision; High Court under Article 227 refrains from reappreciating evidence absent perversity or grave injustice.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of the order passed by learned Additional District Judge(1), Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 16 of 2018, titled Narain Dass & others vs. Deepa Kumari, decided on 29.11.2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents was allowed and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4, Mandi, H.P., was reversed, whereby the learned Trial Court had found the present respondents guilty of committing an offence punishable under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. Briefs facts of the case are that the petitioner had approached the learned Trial Court by filing a suit for possession and permanent injunction, along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of an interim injunction. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 06.06.2006, directed the parties to maintain status quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 49 min/46, Khatauni No. 57, bearing khasra No. 414, measuring 00-10-14 bighas situated in Muhal Sakssal/80, Illaqua Tungal, Sub Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, H.P. till filing of the reply. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.09.2006, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.4, Mandi, H.P. allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1& 2 CPC filed by the present petitioner, whereby the present petitioner was held entitled for ad-interim injunction and the present respondents were restrained form raising any construction, digging the suit land in any manner or creating any obstruction in the peaceful use of the path till the final disposal of the main suit.

3. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure for Contempt of Court by filing an appropriate petition on 04.03.2009. It was stated that the respondents in connivance with the each other and despite having knowledge of the stay order started digging the land with the intention to encroach upon a portion of the suit land by raising pillars therein and till date they are continuing the said work and they are bent upon to violate the lawful orders passed by the Court. It was alleged that the present respondents even on 25.05.2008 dismantled the Danga raised by the present petitioner in order to protect the fencing and in this regard FIR No. 265 dated 02.06.2008 was got registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Therefore, it was prayed that the respondents may be held liable for committing contempt of Court act by sending them to civil imprisonment for violation of the stay order passed by the Court.

4. The petition was filed by Smt. Deepa Kumari through her GPA holder Bhikham Ram, S/O Chimana Ram being her father-in-law.

5. The present respondents filed comprehensive reply to the contempt petition. All the allegations as levelled in the petition were refuted and it was stated that the present petitioner is a habitual litigant and she has instituted multifarious litigation at the behest of her husband without any justification.

6. The averments as made in the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC were specifically denied. It was stated that the respondents neither indulged in any wrongful activity before the institution of the suit nor after passing of the interim injunction. It was stated that they have d