The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a contempt application for violation of an injunction order, the burden of proof lies with the applicants to establish wilful disobedience, and the evidence must support the allegations made.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Contempt Application is filed praying:-

(a) This Hon''ble Court should not be pleased to treat this application as urgent?

(b) This Hon''ble Court should not punish the Contemnor for violation and disobedience of the orders of injunction granted in O.A.No.613 of 2018 in C.S.No.435 of 2018 of the order dated 02.07.2018 by detaining him in a civil prison for a period of three months or such period as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice;

(c) This Hon''ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice?)

1. This application was filed by the applicants in O.A.Nos.613 and 615 of 2018 to punish the respondent/alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the order dated 02.07.2018 in O.A.No.615 of 2018 in C.S.No.435 of 2018.

2. By order dated 02.07.2018, an ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction was granted. The operative portion of the order is as follows:-

“.... Considering all the these aspects ad-interim injunction is granted restraining the 2nd defendant his men agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through him from in any manner interfering with the 1st plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property till 27.07.2018. Applicants shall comply with Order 39 Rule 3a C.P.C. by 27.07.2018. Private Notice is also permitted.”

3. The applicants alleged that the respondent/alleged contemnor refused to allow the first applicant/first plaintiff to enter the suit schedule premises on 03.07.2018 when the advocate commissioner visited the premises for inspection. The applicants also assert that the respondent threatened plaintiffs 4 and 5 with bodily injury and, therefore, they withdrew from the premises. In the counter filed by the respondent, this allegation is denied. The respondent relies upon the advocate commissioner''s report to corroborate such denial.

4. The advocate commissioner filed a report dated 24.07.2018. In the said report, the advocate commissioner does not state that the respondent/alleged contemnor prevented the first plaintiff from entering the premises or that he threatened plaintiffs 4 and 5. Instead, he stated as follows in paragraph 5 of the report:-

“5. I was accompanied by the 1st, 4th, 5th Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant along with their respective Counsels for the inspection. There were two videographers who accompanied me.”

5. The next allegation of the applicants is that the respondent/alleged contemnor and his counsel threatened the first plaintiff when she had visited the suit schedule premises on 04.07.2018 at about 03.00 p.m. along with a locksmith and his assistant for the purpose of changing the entire locking system of the first floor. In the counter of the respondent, the respondent stated that he was informed by his stenographer at about 03.00 p.m. on 04.07.2018 that his grandmother and aunt visited the suit schedule premises along with a few persons and that the fourth applicant broke open the locks leading to the first and second floors of the suit schedule property and changed the locks without giving a spare key to the respondent. The respondent further stated that he requested and pleaded with his grandmother and aunt to give him a spare key.

6. The applicants also alleged that the respondent came down from the second floor of the house and banged the grill door leading to the first floor at about 11.30 a.m. on 18.07.2018, when the first plaintiff had entered the first floor of the suit schedule property along with Mr.Kishore, Advocate. At about 4.45 to 5.00 p.m. on the said date, the applicants assert that the contemnor rang the calling bell continuously and forced open the grill door. They further alleged that he used filthy and unparliamentary words against the applicants and threatened that he would break their legs and jaw and kil