Proceedings for willful disobedience of an injunction require strict proof of both the respondent's prior knowledge of the order and the intentional nature of the violation. Digital evidence, such as photographs, requires authentication to be admissible as proof of a specific time-bound violation.

JUDGMENT

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nakodar, has been dismissed. The said order of the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction at Nakodar against respondent No. 1, Gurnam Singh, seeking restraint against him from raising construction and encroaching upon the common street. Along with the suit, an application for grant of interim relief was filed. On 02.09.2016, upon consideration of the said application, the learned Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to construction/encroachment over the street marked “ABCD” in the site plan dated 02.09.2016, till 09.09.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that a copy of the said order was dispatched to respondent No. 1 through registered post on 03.09.2016, and the postal receipt was placed on record. It is further pleaded that the said order was also personally communicated to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the spot on 03.09.2016 itself. Despite having knowledge of the restraint order, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have deliberately and willfully continued the construction activity at the disputed site and completed the lintel on the same day, i.e. 03.09.2016. It is further submitted that photographs taken on 03.09.2016 at about 3:25 p.m. and 3:27 p.m. clearly depict construction work being actively carried out at the spot, in violation of the status quo order. The matter was also reported to the police authorities. In these circumstances, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking initiation of proceedings for willful disobedience of the order dated 02.09.2016. The respondents appeared and contested the said application. However, after considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 1, while appearing as a witness, has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that summons were served upon him on 03.09.2016. He has further not disputed the correctness of photographs Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-3. Despite this clear admission, the Courts below have discarded the cogent and convincing evidence demonstrating wilful disobedience of the status quo order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is further contended that the learned Courts below have erred in holding that non-examination of the process server was fatal to the case of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the Courts below have also erroneously recorded findings with regard to non-compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, although no such specific issue was framed for adjudication. It is also submitted that the photographs Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-3 have been wrongly discarded on the ground that the owner of the mobile phone, on which the photographs were taken, was not examined. This reasoning, according to the petitioner, is untenable, particularly when respondent No. 1 himself has admitted the correctness of the said photograp