Sheoji Ram vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1986 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

JUDGMENT

Sananda Bhandare, J.

(1) The petitioner filed a suit no. 354 of 1979 for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi claiming possession of a plot opposite Uphar Cinema, Green Park, New Delhi in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. During the pendency of the suit the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by an ad-interim ex-parte injunction by order dated 5th June 1973 which was later on confirmed vide order dated 22nd August 1973. An appeal was filed against the order granting injunction by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was dismissed on 22nd February 1975. Ultimately, however the suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi on 3rd July 1982. Since the suit was dismissed and the petitioner apprehended dispossession an application for stay was moved before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, on that application Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed the following order : "HEARD.The effect of the judgment is stayed till 12-7-82 only in the interest of justice. Action if any, already taken shall not be covered under this order.

(2) It is alleged in this contempt petition that inspite of this order the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Along with the officials of the police dispossessed the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this petition for contempt alleging disobedience of the orders of the Sub Jugde, 1st Class, Delhi dated 5th July .1982.

(3) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have committed gross contempt of court inasmuch as the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from the plot in occupation inspite of the orders of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 5th July 1982 staying the Judgment. It was submitted that though by this order the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi had only stayed the judgment, in fact it meant that the dispossession of the petitioner from the plot was stayed.

(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have not committed any contempt because by the order dated 5th July 1982 the Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi had not stayed the dispossession of the petitioner but bad only stayed the judgment. It was stated that the suit was for permanent injunction against the respondents in respect of the possession of the petitioners from the plot in question. The suit having been dismissed the effect of the order of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi saying the judgment only meant that the petitioners were put back in the same position as they were before they filed the suit. It was further submitted that in any event, if because of the stay order the petitioners wanted to contend that the orders passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class Delhi on the applications filed by the petitioners in the suit under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Cpc had revived then the remedy open to the petitioner was to move an application for disobedience of the orders before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi under Order 39 Rule 2A Civil Procedure Code . Learned counsel referred to Dr. Bimal Ch. Sen v. Mrs. Kamla Mathur, 1982 Rlr 553.

(5) From the perusal of the order of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 5th July 1982 it appears to me that the learned Sub Judge had only stayed the effect of the judgment till 12th July 1982 and had not made any specific order regarding dispossession of the petitioners. If the judgment in the suit was stayed at best it could be said that the order made by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, on the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code . got reactivated. If a grievance regarding disobedience of that order has to be made, as per the judgment of the Division Bench in Dr. Bimal Ch Sen's case (supra) that grievance has to be made before the same Judge who had passed the order by making an application under Order 39 Rule 2A Civil Procedure Code . No doubt if the stay of dispossession bad been granted and other persons apart from parties to the suit had committed contempt of the order of the court, the High Court could have initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, however as the order was not very clear and only the judgment was stayed, to my mind, there does not appear to be any contempt of court.

(6) In the result the contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.