Allahabad High Court
Shashwat Joshi vs Anil Sinha And 2 Others on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55480-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 414 of 2023
Appellant :- Shashwat Joshi
Respondent :- Anil Sinha And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Akash Dikshit,Amrendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Sharma
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2023 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2491 of 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the Contempt Court is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the very proceedings for contempt are not maintainable before this Court for the reason that the decree rendered by the Court of Small Causes in SCC Suit No.1 of 2007 decided on 25.10.2013 is executable through execution proceedings and the same cannot be a subject matter of contempt for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by this Court.
4. It is further submitted that the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondents herein, if any, by means of the Contempt Application (Civil) No.2491 of 2015 came to an end with the passing of the order dated 15.03.2018 on the ground that compliance of the Court's order was made, therefore, once the compliance was made by the present appellant and the notices were discharged, then proceedings will not revive unless the application for recall of the said order was allowed. According to the appellant, an application for recall was filed by the respondent soon thereafter on 03.04.2018.
5. It is also stated that on the application for recall of the order dated 15.03.2018, notice was issued. The Contempt Court had further passed orders on 09.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 calling for report for its satisfaction to proceed. However, by order dated 05.12.2019, the Court had disposed of the contempt petition once again before the reports called for could reach. The revival of contempt proceedings by order dated 20.09.2022 will ipso facto not revive the contempt petition and would only restore the previous application for recall is the sum and substance of the argument.
6. Admittedly, orders dated 09.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 were passed after dismissal of contempt application on 15.03.2018 which have remained unchallenged. Moreover, the order dated 05.12.2019 was recalled on 20.09.2022 and the said order has also not been challenged by the appellant at any point of time, therefore, to say that the contempt proceedings did not survive is too technical an argument. The contempt proceedings are between the Court and the contemnor of which the whole object is to prevent any threat to the majesty of law and uphold the same.
7. On a close scrutiny of the case, we gather that the order passed by this Court on 11.09.2014 in S.C.C. Revision No.31 of 2014 has given rise to the contempt proceedings. Payment of rent and handing over the possession were the two aspects for which an undertaking was given by the appellant before this Court. As far as handing over of the possession is concerned, the following undertaking was recorded by the Court in the order passed on 11.09.2014:
"Sri Joshi has stated that vacant possession of the premises in question shall be handed over to the respondents no.2, 3, & 4 by 31.05.2015."
8. It is violation of the undertaking which has given rise to the contempt.
9. It appears that the contempt Court is examining the violation of the above undertaking and charges have come to be framed against the appellant of which he is put to notice.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charges could not be framed once the appellant during the pendency of S.C.C. Revision before this Court has instituted a suit claiming easementary rights. The application for temporary injunction on being rejected by the trial court is pending consideration before the appellate court in miscellaneous appeal.
11. We are clear in our view that any proceeding initiated after the expression of undertaking dated 11.09.2014 will not overreach the same and it is for this purpose that the Court has put the appellant to notice by means of the impugned order.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Contempt Court does not seem to have travelled beyond the scope of undertaking and is proceeding with the matter for compliance. The opportunity to explain has been protected for the appellant to put forth his case, therefore, there is no scope for an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 arising out of the impugned order. The appellant in the event of any punishment shall have a right to appeal under the Contempt of Court Act itself. The scope of two remedies stands at variance.
13. The present intra-court appeal for no error of the Contempt Court overreaching the parent order dated 11.09.2014 being misconceived, is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 22.8.2023
akhilesh/
