In a case for initiation of contempt proceedings, because the conditions of the impugned order were not followed, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the expression used “till then” does not leave any doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to time. If the impugned order is not extended beyond one particular date, it loses its efficacy.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has prayed for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents for willfully and intentionally disobeying the mandate passed by the court through an order dated 17.2.2022, whereby it was ordered that till the next date of hearing, the office building of the respondents was not to be leased out/rented out and despite this order, the respondent leased out the building. It was mentioned by the respondents that since the interim order dated 28.2.2022 was not extended, they were under the impression that the order dated 17.02.2022 has lost its efficacy.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that though the order dated 17.02.2022, the court was directed to not lease out/rent out the property in question, this order was never extended on the next date of hearing which is 28.02.2022 and hence the respondent was not estopped from leasing out the property in question to the third party.
Then the court dealt with the expression used in the impugned order “Till then”, for the same the case of Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another was referred, where it was held by the supreme court that the expression used “till then” does not leave any doubt that interim order was only extended from time to time if the impugned order is not extended beyond one particular date, it loses its efficacy. And accordingly, no contempt can be said to have been done by the respondents.
The Decision of the Court:
The court found no action of the respondents to be contumacious and accordingly the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Lal Chand and Ors. V. Dharam Chand
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Case No.: COPC No. 82 of 2022
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
