Rajni Rani Gupta vs Babu Ram And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 108 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

Admit.

1. On 18th May, 1994 in an appeal filed by the petitioner, this Court passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 & 2 from selling, transferring or parting with possession of the properties in question or from creating any encumbrance thereof. By an agreement dated 16th April, 1992 respondents 1 and 2 agreed to sell the said properties to respondent No. 3 for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. Since the sale deed was not being executed by respondents 1 & 2 in favor of respondent No. 3, the said respondent filed a suit being S. No. 1018/95 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16th April, 1992. In this suit statement was made by the respondent on 14th May, 1996 that balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- has been paid by respondent No. 3 to respondents 1 and 2 on 15th February, 1996 and sale deed has also been executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner on coming to know of the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 had sold the property in favor of respondent No. 2 in 1996, filed the present petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt against the respondents for their having allegedly violated the orders of this Court dated 18th May, 1994. On the petition being filed, the Court on 14th February, 1997 issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. The petition is continuing till date and no final orders have been passed on that except that on 24th May, 1999 the Court directed respondent No. 3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month in Court as charges for use and occupation of the premises without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

2. Under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, according to the petitioner, the contempt was allegedly committed in early 1994 when the property was sold by respondents 1 & 2 to respondent No. 3. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Om Parkash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and Anr., has held that proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act can be said to have been initiated only when the Court forms and opinion by an application of mind that a prima facie case of initiation of proceedings is made out and accordingly issues notice to the alleged contemner to show cause why he be not punished for contempt. It was further held by the Court that mere issuance of notice calling upon the alleged contemner to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated would not amount to initiation of proceedings for contempt for the purpose of Section 20. Since in the present case only a notice calling upon the alleged contemner to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated has been issued, this case is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. A period of more than one year has already passed from the alleged commission of contempt and this petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court is clearly barred by Section 20 of the Act and the same is accordingly dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.