Narain Singh vs Mahinder Singh And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) Facts giving rise to this civil contempt petition are that Narain Singh, petitioner herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Addl. District Judge Delhi seeking injunction against the respondents Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh restraining them from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the piece of land measuring 2 bighas, 18 biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 situated in village Samaipur, Delhi. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Shri M.S. Rohilla, Addl. District Judge vide order dated 11.6.1990 granted ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the suit land, but on an application moved by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 Cpc, the Addl. District Judge, Mrs. Manju Goel, vide her detailed order dated 29.6.1990 vacated the stay order and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding, prima facie, that the petitioner is neither In possession nor has title over the suit land. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before this Court.

(2) In this contempt petition filed by the petitioner, it has been alleged that he purchased this land vide registered sale deed on 14.5.89 from Maman Singh, who delivered the possession of the land to him and his name has been duly recorded as in possession in Khasra Girdwari as well as in Khatauni. According to the petitioner despite the order dated 11.6.90 passed by Shri M.S. Robilla, Addl. District Judge, the respondents tried to dispossess him and on 26.6.90, the respondents along with large number of persons armed with deadly weapons came to the suit land and tried to dispossess the petitioner. Police was called and case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506, 323, 427 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondents and others. An application for contempt of Court was filed before the same Addl. District Judge and the petitioner also moved an application for appointment of a local Commissioner, but the Addl. District Judge vacated the stay order without consideration of the contention of the petitioner. In the appeal show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and it was ordered that the petitioner will not be dispossessed without due process of law. Despite this order dated 30.6.90, the respondents continued their attempt to forcibly dispossess the petitioner which led him to file an application for early hearing. On the application moved by the petitioner, a local Commissioner was appointed and that local Commissioner in his report did not find the respondents in possession of the suit land. According to the petitioner, the respondents have no regard for the orders of the Court and are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land and as such they are guilty of the contempt of Court.

(3) The respondents contested this petition and filed written reply. According to the respondents this contempt petition is counterblast to the contempt petition filed by the respondents being No. 80/91. There is no cause of action against the respondents. The petitioner obtained injunction order by playing fraud on the vacation Judge Shri M.S. Rohilla, A.O.J. by not disclosing true facts. By obtaining the ex-parte injunction order the petitioner tried to interfere in the possession of the respondent, but they could not succeed and filed this contempt petition. This plea of the petitioner was not accepted by the Addl. District Judge, who rejected the application holding that there has not been any violation of any order passed by the Court and no contempt is made out. It is only to pressurise the respondents that this contempt petition has been filed. Regarding the report of the local Commissioner, it is submitted that it is a self-seeking evidence and V.K.. Seth, Local Commissioner has been assisting Shri Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate who is the Counsel for petitioner in this petition in a number of cases of Dda as Shri Ravinder Sethi is the Counsel for DDA. The report given by Shri V.K. Sethi in such circumstances is not believable and further this report is at the back of the respondents and no reliance can be placed on such a report which is self-seeking evidence and moreover, it is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition as the report is of later period.

(4) I have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(5) There cannot be any dispute about the legal proposition that if there is any violation of an injunction order passed by a Subordinate Court under Order 39 Rules 1-2 Cpc, the remedy lies under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A Civil Procedure Code before the same Court.

(6) The plea of the petitioner that the respondents have violated the Interim order passed under Order 39 Rules 1-2 Civil Procedure Code by the Addl. District Judge cannot form the basis of contempt proceedings sought to be initiated by this Court. His remedy was by moving an application under Order 39 Rule 2A Cpc before that Court. It is pertinent to note that the Addl. District Judge vide her detailed order has held that the petitioner is neither in possession nor has title over the suit land and as such dismissed his application for grant of injunction.

(7) On the plea that after obtaining the order dated 27,3.91 from this Court the respondent tried to dispose and attacked the servants of the petitioner and that a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against the respondents and thus it is gross misuse of the order of the Court, no contempt is made out against the respondent from the facts on record. It is not in dispute that on 27.3.91, in the contempt petition moved by the respondent Mahinder Singh and others, M.L. Verma, J. restrained Narain Singh petitioner herein from interfering in the possession of the respondent herein In respect of the land measuring 4 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 in village Samaipur. This order was, however, clarified on 1.4.1991 when notice was Issued to the respondents herein that the parties are to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the disputed land and Sh. V, Sethi, advocate was appointed as a Local Commissioner. The report of the Lo:al Commissioner Is a t the back of the respondents and he did not give notice to the respondents before inspecting the spot. Moreover, it does nos show and prove that the respondents have committed any violation of the order of the Court and or committed any contempt. Civil contempt as defined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 means willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, order or writ or other process of Court or willful breach of the undertaking given to the Court. In the instant case it is clear that no particular judgment, decree, direction, order or writ or other process containing the terms was violated. It is must for the Court to adjudicate as to whether there is any disobedience calling for an action under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. If no case is made out for proceeding against the respondents, the petition is to be dismissed.

(8) The averments made in the contempt petition are not sufficient to bring this case within the purview of Sec. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act. The plea that a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against the respondents does not help the petitioner in showing that contempt has been committed by the respondents necessitating action against them under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Report of the local commissioner dated 2,4.91 also does not help the petitioner to bring the case within the purview of Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(9) From whatever view we may take no case is made out for proceeding against the respondents under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act and therefore, this application is dismissed. Petition dismiffed.