The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indra Pasricha vs Deepika Chauhan & Ors consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”.
Facts
Petitioner herein had inherited a property ('the property in question'), from her late sister. It is stated that the brother-in-law of the Petitioner herein, (namely, R.N. Kapur) resided on the ground floor of the said property along with his wife (Raksha) who was also a sister of the Petitioner herein.
Procedural History
On the death of Raksha, R. N. Kapoor, filed a suit before this Court, claiming to be the owner of the ground floor of the property in question. The said suit was settled wherein it was decided that the defendant shall be entitled to take physical possession of the ground floor of the property after the expiry of 3 months from the date of his death. A joint application under O13R1/3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed before this Court, which passed a decree in terms of the settlement deed. R. N. Kapoor lived alone on the property till he breathed his last. The Petitioner, as per the directions of this Court, took possession of the property in question. Then one evening the Petitioner received a call from a tenant informing her that some people had trespassed in the property. It was found that the Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 had trespassed the property in question. Consequently, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the local police. An FIR was also registered at Police Station Hauz Khas u/s 448/34 IPC. The Respondents herein were made aware of the undertaking given by R.N. Kapoor. Despite that, the Respondents had not vacated the premises which resulted in the filing of the instant contempt petition.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Respondents have not given any undertaking to the Court. Since they were not a part of the proceedings, they cannot be held liable for the contemptuous act of wilfully disobeying the Orders of this Court. By way of the will R. N. Kapoor handed over the property to Respondent No.1 and only a civil suit can decide the title of the parties. The principles of third-party liability cannot be adopted in the contempt proceedings. The Police found that there was sufficient evidence against the Respondents herein.
Respondent: The Petitioners had filed a Suit for recovery of possession of the property in question against the Respondents, and the same is pending. There is no contempt till the ownership of the property in question is decided. The remedy of the Petitioner does not lie in filing a Suit, but by executing a decree.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that contempt must not be resorted to when there are provisions for execution, but at the same time, just because remedy of execution lies, it does not mean that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated. The contempt jurisdiction is the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected, and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. So, to punish a contemnor, it must be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind.
The undertaking given by R. N. Kapoor before this Court will undoubtedly take precedence over the will executed by him prior to giving the said undertaking. The same cannot be permitted to be circumvented by saying that the respondents were not parties to the suit and have not given the undertaking. Hence, the contention that the Respondents cannot be held liable for the contempt of the Court as they were not parties to the Suit and had not given the undertaking to the Court was not accepted.
Judgment
If the Respondent No.1 was initially not aware about the consent decree, it was noted that the moment she was informed about the undertaking given by R. N. Kapoor, she should not have persistently breached the same. That obstinate and wilful act of the Respondent not to disobey the consent decree amounts to civil contempt u/s 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts, 1971 Act. The fact that the Suit is pending is no answer for the contemptuous disobedience on the part of the Respondent to violate the consent decree which was based on an undertaking given by R. N. Kapoor through whom Respondent No.1 derives title. The Respondents, therefore, committed contempt and were liable for punishment u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Case Name: Indra Pasricha vs Deepika Chauhan & Ors
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 768/2018 & CM APPL. 685/2020
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 19th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
