[2025:RJ-JD:39472]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 94/2024

1. Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 76 P Block Sriganganagar Rajasthan

2. Smt Kusum D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 76 P Block Sriganganagar Rajasthan

3. Hitender S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 76 P Block Sriganganagar Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus

1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Resident Of Ward No

9 Chak 2 Y Sriganganagar Rajasthan

2. Santosh Yadav S/o Shri Murari Lal, Resident Of House No

3/7 Officer Colony Chak 5 Z Sriganganagar Rajasthan

3. Bhola Singh S/o Gurmel Singh, Resident Of Master Colony Sriganganagar At Present Village 2 Y Post Office 3 Y Sriganganagar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

04/09/2025

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of order dated 25.09.2024 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.486/2024.

2. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, status quo as it existed on the said date in respect of the property in dispute was directed to be maintained by the parties.

3. It has been submitted that the suit in question as filed by plaintiff Dinesh Kumar (respondent No.1 in the present contempt petition) stood dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 05.09.2024. First appeal against the said judgment & decree was preferred on 11.09.2024 and the interim order in the said appeal was granted on 25.09.2024. However, in the intervening period i.e. between 05.09.2024 to 25.09.2024, the petitioners raised a boundary wall on the land in question and even let out the property for running of some coaching classes. Even the electricity and water connections were applied for and were issued on the land in question. However, in garb of interim order dated 25.09.2024, the plaintiff caused serious damage to the property at the site in question in so far as he damaged the wiring of the CCTV cameras installed at the site and also caused damage to electricity meter board with an intention to discontinue the electricity connection.

4. It has further been submitted that a board containing the information about interim order dated 25.09.2024 was also placed by the plaintiff on the site in question which also is in disobedience of the interim order.

5. Photographs to substantiate the submissions made in the contempt petition have also been annexed.

6. Reply to the contempt petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents with a submission that no such action as averred by the petitioners has been undertaken by the respondents. So far as the erection of the board is concerned, it rather contains the information of the interim order and hence, cannot be termed to be an act of flouting the interim order.

7. It has further been submitted that it is in fact the petitioners who have tried to change the structure of the suit property. Despite the first appeal having been filed by the plaintiff, the defendants petitioners proceeded on to not only construct the boundary wall but also to let out the property in question within just a span of 20 days.

8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

9. It is an admitted fact that the electricity connection on the property in question was issued between the period from 05.09.2024 to 25.09.2024. The construction of boundary wall also was admittedly of the said period. Meaning thereby, on the date of passing of interim order dated 25.09.2024, the site was enclosed by a boundary wall with an electricity connection.

10. But then, so far as the averment of causing damage to the CCTV cameras on the property in question is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that there is nothing on record to suggest so. The photographs as annexed along with the contempt petition also reflect a boundary wall with some boards affixed on the same pertaining to some coach