Wilful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is a contempt of Court.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Whether innocence or bona fide intention can be pleaded as an absolute defence in an action against the person under the Contempt of Courts Act for committing civil contempt, is the short question that falls for consideration in this case.

2. Late Shri Kehar Singh father of the present petitioner had purchased a plot in the abadi of village Lalana from one Ajmer Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.3.1964. Mihan Singh and Gurdev Singh and encorached upon the said land in the year 1977 and had raised some construction.

3. He was compelled to file a suit for possession, by demolishing the wall and Chabutra constructed by these two persons, being Civil Suit No. 490 of 1979/1977. This suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner or their predecessors in interest on 3.11.1979. First appeal against this order was accepted by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.1.1981. In the meanwhile Kehar Singh died, consequently his heirs preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 620 of 1981. Along with this appeal the appellants had filed an application being C.M. No. 698-C of 1981 which came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 2.4.1981 and the following order was passed:-

"Present: Sh. M.S. Sular, Advocate

Notice of motion for 23rd April, 1981. Status quo be maintained.

April 2, 1981. Sd/- S.S. Dewan, Judge."

This order was confirmed vide order dated 23.4.1981 in the following terms after Mihan Singh and Gurdev Singh appeared through their counsel on 23.4.1981:-

"Notice.Stay to continue.

Sd/- S.P. Goyal, Judge.

April 23, 1981."

The above order of status quo has to be construed and read in conjunction with the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner in the miscellaneous application for injunction. The prayer reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the defendants-respondents be restrained from constructing, any portion of the land in dispute, and alienating any part of the property in dispute during the pendency of this appeal, or any other relief to which the appellants are found entitled, be also granted to them."

4. There was no dispute between the parties till 19.9.1995. It is stated by the petitioners herein that respondents No. 1 and 5 to 9 are parties to the Regular Second Appeal. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are sons of respondent No. 1 Gurdev Singh while respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are sons of the deceased Mihan Singh. Respondents No. 10 and 12 are alleged to be the associates of these respondents No. 1 to 9. Respondents No. 13 and 14 are stated to be the masons while respondents No. 15 and 16 are the police officials who are stated to be abetting the contempt and in fact positively participated in disobedience of the order of the Court. It is further alleged that on 19.9.1995 the respondent after demolition of the existing structure had started constructing a new structure on the same land which is subject matter of dispute and was specifically covered by the order of status quo. On 19.9.1995, the petitioner, his brother and nephew went to the police station, requested the S.H.O. to take appropriate action upon producing certified copy/photo copy and see to it that the order of the Court was not flouted. The S.H.O. had admittedly sent two constables to the village on the same day upon seeing the copy of the order passed by the Court. It is alleged that these constables had seen the construction going on and even confirmed the factum of the above orders being passed by the High Court from the respondents.

These constables asked the parties to come on 20.9.1995. The S.H.O. asked the parties to go to Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Karan Singh respondent No. 15. In furtherance to this direction they went to respondent No. 15 and showed him the copy of the order dated 23.4.1981 passed by the High Court. The said respondent No. 15 abused the petitioners and their family members and threatened that the work of construction has to be completed and if they tried to s