Willful disobedience of an interim injunction granted by a competent court constitutes contempt of court and is punishable by fine or imprisonment.

B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for violating the order passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal pending before him. The facts of the case are that a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the applicant on 15-5-1982 on the ground that the applicant has encroached upon the land bearing survey No. 605/1129 and has constructed 3 rooms and a courtyard thereon. The Estate Officer vide his order dated 29-6-1987 passed under Section 5 of the said Act, directed the applicant to vacate the said premises by 15th July, 1987. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the applicant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 9 of the said Act and on 21-7-1987 the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, passed the following order:

"heard. Admit. The operation of the impugned order is to remain stayed in the meantime. "

( 2 ) IT appears from the order-sheet filed by both the parties before the Court that the interim stay granted on 21st July, 1987, had been extended from time to time but at several occasions it had lapsed for the interregnum periods. The case of the opposite parties is that there has been some misunderstanding on their part that the interim injunction granted by the learned District judge/addl. District Judge from time to time was not in operation and, thus, the opposite parties demolished the said construction on 7-9-1990. According to the opposite parties confusion/misunderstanding arose because of the letter dated 1st September, 1990 written by the advocate of the opposite parties to the opposite party No. 1 stating that the interim injunction is no more in operation (Annexure CA-I to the contempt petition ).

( 3 ) ONE of the issues to be determined in this case is whether on 7-9-1990, the date on which the opposite parties demolished the construction made by the applicant, the interim injunction was in operation or not. I had gone through the complete order-sheet, wherein the relevant order is as under:

"16-8-1990. Summon the lower Court record. Put up on 10-9-1990 for arguments. Stay order is extended till the date fixed. "

( 4 ) THUS, it is clear and there is no ambiguity of any kind or doubt that on 7-9-1990 the date on which the demolition had taken place, the interim injunction passed in favour of the applicant was in operation and thus, the demolition done by the opposite parties is in flagrant violation of the interim injunction granted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, on 16-8-1990.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the opposite parties tried to justify the demolition on the ground of misunderstanding which had arisen because of the letter of their advocate dated 1-9-1990. This contention is devoid of any force as there can be no justification for writing such a letter particularly in view of the fact that all the orders had been passed by the Court after hearing the learned counsel for the opposite parties, thus, this may be to employ a subterfuge to avoid compliance of a Courts order and this cannot purge the opposite parties from their liability of contempt. This amounts to wilful disobedience of the order passed by the competent Court by the opposite parties. For the loss, the applicant has suffered because of the demolition of the construction made by him, he may pursue the remedy which may be available to him under the law. So far as the contempt proceedings are concerned, after considering all the circumstances in totality it is held that the opposite parties had wilfully disobeyed the interim injunction granted by the appellate authority under the Act and this act of opposite parties has certainly been contumacious and if the contemners are allowed to go scot free, there is a danger of erosion to the confidence of the general public in the judicial system. Thus, the op