IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7177-2025 DECIDED ON: 27.10.2025 RAJA RAM @ DHAN SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS DULI CHAND .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal and 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner–plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed and the appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner–plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent–defendant, claiming himself to be co-owner in possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 11.02.2016, directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property.

3. It was alleged by the petitioner that despite the said order being in force and in knowledge of the respondent, on 12.03.2016, the respondent– defendant along with his family members and other persons demolished a part of the suit property and removed the material such as bricks, garters and shutters in violation of the court’s status quo order. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC alleging wilful disobedience of the court order dated 11.02.2016.

4. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, after framing issues and recording evidence, held that the burden to prove the violation of the order dated 11.02.2016 was upon the applicant–plaintiff. The Court observed that Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is punitive in nature and akin to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, and hence the violation must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

5. The Court noted that the status quo order was only regarding possession of the suit property and not regarding construction or demolition. The applicant’s witnesses merely deposed about alleged demolition and removal of materials but none of them specifically deposed that the applicant was in possession of the suit property at the relevant time or that the respondent had interfered in such possession.

6. The photographs and RTI documents produced by the applicant were found not duly proved and insufficient to establish wilful violation. It was further observed that the land in dispute had been acquired by NHAI for road construction and the work continued throughout the pendency of the case. The trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Sukhdeo Parsad [(2009) 5 SCC 665], holding that strict proof is required for such disobedience, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

7. The learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, upon hearing the appeal (CMA No. 80 of 2022), concurred with the trial Court’s findings and held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 27.09.2022.

8. It was observed that although the plaintiff had alleged demolition and lifting of material, there was no clear pleading identifying the specific portion of the suit property allegedly possessed by him. The Court noted that the photographs Ex. A6 to A19 relied upon by the plaintiff did not conclusively prove that the respondent had interfered with his possession. During cross-examination, the respondent denied any demolition and stated that after learning of the stay order, no further work was carried out.

9. The Appellate Court held that mere admission that the respondent was performing some work on the day when the order was passed did not constitute disobedience thereafter. It reiterated that the petitioner