9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.9 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing contempt of court by violating the undertaking given by him to the Court at the time of disposal of the suit and awarded him simple imprisonment for four months. 3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: A. The appellant executed a sale deed in favour of one Mohd. Yusuf on 5.9.2002 in respect of the premises bearing No. 148, village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for a sum of ₹ 2,10,000/- and got the said deed registered. B. Mohd. Yusuf filed suit No. 106/2003 in the Civil Court, Delhi, on 26.4.2003 for permanent injunction alleging that the appellant tried to dispossess him on 24.4.2003 from the said suit premises. His application for interim relief was rejected. The Civil Court issued summons and notice to the appellant/defendant. C. In response to the said summons and notice, the appellant filed a written statement on 29.4.2003 admitting the execution of sale deed in respect of the suit premises for a sum of ₹ 2.10 lacs and handing over its possession to the plaintiff but denied the allegation that he had made any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th under the provisions of Act 1971. I. The appellant filed a suit on 23.2.2005 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 5.9.2002. J. The High Court while accepting the reference as Criminal Contempt, issued show cause notice to the appellant on 2.2.2005 directing him to appear in person on 16.2.2005. The Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt on the basis of inconsistent pleas taken by him and also for the breach of undertaking and imposed simple imprisonment for four months. The appellant was granted bail by this Court on 29.9.2009. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the grievance mainly, that it was a case of civil contempt which could have been dealt with by the Trial Court itself and by no means could be treated as a criminal contempt case. The High Court erred in treating the same as criminal contempt and awarded the punishment to the appellant which was not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellant is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Shree Prakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence is taken. [Vide: Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1982 SC 816; Sham Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal Bazar, AIR 1987 SC 197; Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Shri Prem Nath Kapoor, AIR 1993 SC 2525; and M/s Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh thr. Mangat Singh (dead) by Lrs. Ors. v. Satpal, AIR 2003 SC 4300] 7. From the above fact situation, it is evident that the suit was filed on 26.4.2003 and in response to the notice issued in that case, the appellant/defendant appeared on 29.4.2003 in person and filed his written statement. It was on the same day that his statement had been recorded by the court. We failed to understand as to what statutory provision enabled the civil court to record the statement of the appellant/defendant on the date of filing the written statement. The suit itself has been disposed of on the basis of his statement within three weeks of the institution of the suit. The order sheets of the suit read as under: 26.4.2003: Present: Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Arguments on injunction application heard. No ground for granting ex-parte stay order at this stage, request in this regard is declined. Issue summons of the suit and noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one, that is granted by the court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. (Vide: Dr. A.R. Sircar v. State of U.P. Ors., 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 734; Shiv Shanker Ors. v. Board of Directors, UPSRTC Anr., 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 726; Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, through its Manager Anr. v. Sree Kumar Tiwary Anr., AIR 1997 SC 3071; M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1566; and Jaipur Municipal Corpn. v. C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423). 10. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance of the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution court under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contempt proceedings. Even otherwise, it is not desirable for the High Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings for disobedience of the order of the injunction passed by the subordinate court, for the reason that where a decree is for an injunction, and the party against whom it has been passed has wilfully disobeyed it, the same may be executed by attachment of his property or by detention in civil prison or both. The provision of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC applies to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. In other words, it applies to cases where the party is directed to do some act and also to the cases where he is abstained from doing an act. Still to put it differently, a person disobeys an order of injunction not only when he fails to perform an act which he is directed to do but also when he does an act which he is prohibited from doing. Execution of an injunction decree is to be made in pursuance of the Order XXI Rule 32 CPC as the CPC provides a particular manner and mode of execution and therefore, no other mode is permissible. (See: Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (In voluntary Liquidation) v. Haridas Mundhra Ors., AIR 1972 SC 1826). 13. There can be no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stinction between a civil and criminal contempt observing that enforcement of the order in civil contempt is for the benefit of one party against another, while object of criminal contempt is to uphold the majesty of law and the dignity of the court. The scope of the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is entirely different. It is a mode to compel the opposite party to obey the order of injunction by attaching the property and detaining the disobedient party in civil prison as a mode of punishment for being guilty of such disobedience. Breach of undertaking given to the court amounts to contempt in the same way as a breach of injunction and is liable to be awarded the same punishment for it. 15. It is a settled legal proposition that the executing court does not have the power to go behind the decree. Thus, in absence of any challenge to the decree, no objection can be raised in execution. (Vide: State of Punjab Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa Anr ., AIR 1992 SC 473). 16. The case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. Whatever may be the circumstances, the court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hok Kr. Newatia Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 367, wherein it has been held that filing of a false affidavit or taking false pleadings in the court amounts to criminal contempt. The High Court failed to appreciate the nature/status of proceedings in which the alleged false affidavit had been filed. The instant case is quite distinguishable on facts from those cases. In the instant case, proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC were not maintainable at all. Had the complainant Mohd. Yusuf filed the execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, the court could have proceeded in accordance with law without going into the averments raised therein by the appellant. 19. In a given case if the court grants time to a tenant to vacate the tenanted premises and the tenant files an undertaking to vacate the same after expiry of the said time, but does not vacate the same, the situation would be altogether different. (See: Sakharan Ganesh Aaravandekar Anr. v. Mahadeo Vinayak Mathkar Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 186; and Mahender Kumar Gandhi v. Mohammad Tajer Ali Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 795). In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the court may also resort to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, prima facie, it appears that plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit property by the respondents. The contention of the respondent no.1 that plaintiff was never in possession runs counter to the written statement of defendant filed in the original suit. Moreover, this fact needs evidence and evidence will be led only before Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, prima facie case for reference of the contempt petition has been made out. The Court reached the following conclusion : As to the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.1 that evidence is required before making a reference, the provision of section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are to be noted. Section 11 says that it is the Hon'ble High Court which has jurisdiction to inquire into or try the contempt petition. Therefore, the contention has no force. This Court has only to see that prima facie case exist for referring the contempt. The Court made the reference as under: However, against other respondents there is no material for making the reference. In view of the above, a reference is made to the Hon'ble High Court with humble prayer to try the contempt petition against respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been conducted in most casual and cavalier manner. 23. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has placed a very heavy reliance on the judgments of this Court in Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited Anr. v. Vilasiniben Ramachandran Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 218; and C. Elumalai Ors. v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2214, wherein this court held that wherever there is a wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct - deliberate flouting of the order of the court, it amounts to contempt and it becomes the duty of the court to exercise its inherent power to set the wrong right as a party cannot be permitted to perpetuate the wrong by disobeying the order further. In the case at hands, the court initiated criminal contempt proceedings but ultimately after convicting the appellant did not enforce the order passed by the Civil Court dated 12.5.2003. 24. In Daroga Singh Ors. v. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, this Court rejected the plea of the contemnors that the High Court could not initiate the contempt proceedings in respect of the Contempt of the Courts subordinate to it placing reliance upon earlier judgments in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
