Clear evidence of an existing injunction is necessary for contempt proceedings; mere assumptions or vague terms do not suffice.

1. This revision arises from the Order dated 29th December, 1998 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31/98 whereby the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein. The said appeal was against the order dated 29th April, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 247/97 / E and Civil Misc. Appln. No. 362/97 / E in Regular Civil Suit No. 49/1973 / E, whereby the trial Court in exercise of the powers under O.39, R.2A of C.P.C. had directed the petitioners to re - erect the suit shops and to restore them in the condition in which the same were existing prior to the demolition on 22nd July, 1997 within thirty days of the order, failing which the petitioner No. 2 has been ordered to be detained in prison for a period of one month.

2. The case of the plaintiff / respondents is that the trial Court had granted temporary injunction by the Order dated 6-3-1973 on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioners not to remove or interfere with the suit shops till the disposal of the said suit; however, on 22-7-97 the petitioners all of a sudden accompanied by the Mamlatdar, Policemen and labourers, demolished the suit shops without any prior notice. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that neither the petitioner No. 2 came across any such order of temporary injunction, nor the respondent could produce any copy of any such order and since the suit shops were erected on the Municipal drain, in exercise of their powers and duties under the Municipalities Act and in view of the direction issued by this Court by its Order dated 4-6-97 in Writ Petition No. 148/97, the suit ships were removed.

3. The trial Court held that the petitioners had knowledge of the Order dated 6-3-73 and in spite of that, they disobeyed the said Order and that the Order dated 4-6-97 in Writ Petition No. 148/97 passed by this Court does not apply to the matters which are sub judice and therefore the remedy would lie in undoing the wrong of restoring the status quo ante and directed the petitioners to re - erect the suit shops and restore the same as existed prior to the demolition on 22-7-1997 within thirty days from the date of the order.

4. The lower Appellate Court while confirming the order by the trial Court, held that the respondents have proved that the trial Court had granted temporary injunction on 6-3-73 and the petitioners have wilfully disobeyed the said order and the action on the part of the petitioners being illegal, the same cannot be protected. The lower appellate Court has also held that the fate of the suit depends upon the existence of the suit shops and that merely because the said order dated 6-3-73 states that the injunction order is confirmed till the decision of the suit though there was no ex - parte order passed earlier, it cannot be said that no order of injunction was passed.

5. The order which is stated to have been disobeyed by the petitioners by demolishing the suit shops, is one recorded in the roznama sheet of 6th March, 1973 in the records of R. C. S. No. 49/73 and it reads thus : -
"6-3-73 :
Called on today before me.
Advocate of both the parties are present.
Advocate for the defendant states that he has no objection in granting injunction. Order passed. Injunction order is confirmed till the decision of the suit.
Suit is adjourned for written statement on 29-3-1973."

6. Though it was strenuously argued by Smt. A. A. Agni, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents that the said order was passed on the basis of an undertaking given by the petition