17 August 2016
Supreme Court
Download

O.P.VERMA Vs SHAHMAL .

Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: C.A. No.-008176-008176 / 2016
Diary number: 7202 / 2012
Advocates: SHEKHAR KUMAR Vs MONIKA GUSAIN


1

Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8176 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 8751  of 2012)

O.P.VERMA    APPELLANT                                               VERSUS

SHAHMAL & ORS.         RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T KURIAN,J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  whereby  the  High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court on a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, imposing a penalty of imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. The issue pertains to the demolition of a building. According to the appellant, who was at the relevant time working as a Junior Engineer, he had only implemented the order passed by the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, and that too under the direct supervision of superior officers. 4. It  is  seen  that  the  Commissioner  and  Joint Commissioner,  Municipal  Corporation,  Faridabad  were discharged in the proceedings and only the appellant was visited with the punishment. 5. Despite, service of notice, there is no appearance for the contesting respondents who were plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

2

Page 2

6. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that  the  appellant  had  only  discharged  the  directions under the supervision of the superior officers, who have been let off in the proceeding, the appellant may also be given the same treatment.

7. Having regard to the factual background as above, we are of the view that the appellant should succeed, since his superior officers, under whose supervision the contumacious  action  alleged  against  the  appellant  was committed have been let off.  Therefore, the appeal is allowed.   The  impugned  judgment  is  set  aside.   The appellant is discharged from all the charges, accepting the apology tendered by him in court.

        .................J.   [KURIAN JOSEPH]

 ....................J.       [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

 NEW DELHI;   AUGUST 17, 2016