Misuse of contempt petitions against judicial officers and the availability of remedies such as appeals under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT :

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. This is an unfortunate and ill advised litigation in which the petitioner is praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against two serving judicial officers, without there being any fault on their part.

2. Though, the petitioners has not attached the plaint with the contempt petition, however the facts as gathered from the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in CR No. 1184 of 2023, would reveal that one M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioners/defendants (wrongly described as plaintiff in the memo of parties). The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.03.2015, qua the land of the petitioners measuring 28 Kanals 18 Marlas in Village Bansepur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, on the basis of some assignment agreement.

3. The order further reveals that the suit came up for the first time before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) on 28.11.2018 and an ex-parte injunction was granted on 14.12.2018. Since the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC could not be decided for the reasons as noticed in the aforesaid order, primarily either due to COVID-19 situation or on account of various applications filed by the parties and transfer of the Presiding Officers, the aforesaid revision petition was disposed of with the following observations:

“9. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. Ld. Trial Court shall dispose of pending application within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the instant order or a copy of the web print being produced before it by petitioner/defendants. Registry to convey this order to Ld. Presiding Officer of the Trial Court as well as to Ld. District Judges of the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for sensitizing Ld. Presiding Officers of Trial Courts about the significance and importance of timely disposal of injunction applications in such like pending cases.

10. In the parting, I may also hasten to add here that I am fully alive to the situation that delay is not attributable to any one particular Presiding Officer. From the date of filing of the suit until the date, it is the third Presiding Officer, in the interregnum, dealing with the application. Even he has not taken note of statutory duty cast on him, inasmuch as, case was listed before him for first time on 08.07.2022, but he has been adjourning the disposal of the application without recording any acceptable reasons, knowing fully well that ex-parte injunction was granted way back on 14.12.2018. It is thus not the negligence of any singular Presiding Officer. However, it is a duty of every Presiding Officer to be self vigilant and mindful of the duty as envisaged under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A CPC. The current incumbent though joined as Presiding Officer in the Court in question only in the month of July, 2022 but ought to have been careful in mechanically adjourning the pending application even that the same had already been pending before his predecessors for about 4 years.

11. Furthermore, there is another conspectus of the matter viz. the petitioner having not availed his appellate remedy before first Court of appeal. This Court is not interfering in ex-parte injunction with liberty to petitioner to seek his remedy of appeal in case he so chooses but given that the Ld. Trial Court has already been asked to decide the same within 30 days it is for the petitioner to take a call on his options. The power reposed with Trial Court to pass ex-parte injunctions is contained under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC which reads as under:

“1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted:

Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise:

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in a exec