Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh vs Mrs. Harnam Kaur And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 835 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. These three contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of inter alia Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it ought to be mentioned that on account of the fact that the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court had been raised from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 20 lakhs, the suit [CS(OS) 695/1990] stood transferred to the District Court and the same is pending before the court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari. The suit has been renumbered as Suit No. 609/2006. Had the present petition been only under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the same would also have had to be transferred to the District Court. However, since the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have also been invoked, this petition has been treated by this Court as one under Section 12 of the said Act. It is also pertinent to note that by an order dated 06.10.2005, my learned predecessor had directed that the contempt applications be separated from the suit.

2. Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt to mean willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines contempt of court to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. The punishment for contempt of court is prescribed under Section 12 which, so much as is relevant, reads as under:

12. Punishment for contempt of court - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

Explanation - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in Sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that the he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

(4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(5) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the respondent No. 1 (Smt Harnam Kaur) passed away. He submits that, therefore, the contempt petitions would continue only in respect of two respondents, i.e., Respondent No. 2 (Mrs Mahinder Kaur) and the respondent No. 3 (Mr Jagjit Singh). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said respondents have been guilty of willfully disobeying the order of this Court passed on 14.03.1990 in an application (IA No. 1915/1990) in S. No. 695/1990 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC. The said order [order dated 14.03.1990 (Exhibit PW-1/2)] reads as under:

S. No. 695/90

Suit be registered. Summons to the defendants for 19th July, 1990.

I.A. 1915/90

Notice for the same date. In the meantime it is considered to be a fit case to restrain the defendants by an interim order ex-parte from changing the position in respect of the property in dispute. It is therefore, ordered that defendants No. 1 to 3 shall not transfer, alienate or part with possession of property bearing No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi wholly or in part in any manner nor they shall raise any further construction on this property till further orders. Plaintiff to take requisite steps under Order 39 Rule 3, CPC.

4. As is apparent, the said order pertains to the suit property bearing No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi. A plain reading of the order makes it clear that the defendants (who are respondents herein) were restrained from changing the position in respect of the same. They were also ordered not to transfer, alienate or part with possession of the said property wholly or in part. They were also restrained from raising any further constructions on the said property till further orders. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 14.03.1990 has since been confirmed and is operating till today. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the suit was filed, the property comprised of a vacant piece of land and there was no construction thereon. The suit had been filed because the respondents had threatened to raise construction thereon. He submitted that by an order dated 09.02.1993 (Exhibit PW-1/17), this Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the suit property and to report on the status thereof. The Local Commissioner (Ms Sunita Dutt) visited the suit property on 01.03.1993. Photographs had also been taken in the course of her visit. On 22.04.1993, the said Local Commissioner submitted her report alongwith the photographs. The report has been marked as Exhibit PW-1/18.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the report indicates that an additional gate had been constructed, the outer block had been demolished, a room adjacent to the front wall had been constructed, the tin sheet roof on the main block had been converted into a cemented roof and in addition a door and windows had been made. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the report also reveals that there was a cemented brick permanent construction which housed the service centre allegedly run by the respondents. It was contended further that though the respondents are said to have been running a service centre for Texla TVs, on the visit of the Local Commissioner, the place was found to contain Beltek TVs. This, according to the learned Counsel, implied that the respondents had parted with possession to some other agency.

6. On allegations of further constructions being made, this Court, by an order dated 16.11.1993 appointed a second Local Commissioner (Mr R.C. Nangia). The said Local Commissioner (Mr R.C. Nangia) visited the premises on 17.11.1993 and submitted his report of the same date being Exhibit PW-1/19 alongwith photographs. In the same suit, a third Local Commissioner was also appointed on 09.11.1998 in IA No. 9840/1998. The said Local Commissioner also submitted his report dated 03.12.1998 (Exhibit PW-1/6 in CCPO 46/2007). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all these reports of the three successive Local Commissioners clearly indicate that the respondents did not obey the order passed by this Court on 14.03.1990 and in such willful disobedience continued to carry out constructions as well as altering the status and position of the property in question.

7. By an order dated 04.02.2003, the following issue had been framed:

Whether the alleged Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have violated the Orders of this Court passed on 14.3.1990?

8. On 16.04.2007, this Court passed another order indicating that since these petitions raise a common issue, the evidence would also be common. Further time was granted for filing of affidavits by way of evidence. The petitioner had filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The respondents, despite opportunity having been granted to them, have not filed any affidavit by way of evidence or any other evidence. It may also be pertinent to note that the respondents have not filed any objections to any of the aforesaid reports of the Local Commissioners.

9. On going through the reports of the Local Commissioners and the evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which have not been controverted by the respondents, it is more than clear to me that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 14.03.1990. The position becomes absolutely clear by comparing the photographs accompanying the said Local Commissioners' reports. As an instance, the photographs filed alongwith the first and second reports clearly indicate that the front wall of the property has the following words painted along the top:

+ OBEROI CHEMIST + GURU RAM DAS CHARITABLE DISPENSARY +

There is only one gate on the far right of the said wall which also appears to have been made recently as would be indicated in the photographs filed alongwith the first Local Commissioner's report. When one looks at the photographs of the same front wall filed alongwith Mr Nangia's report, one notes that another gate towards the centre has been opened up after partially demolishing the wall. Instead of the earlier inscription on the wall, the present inscription is truncated to read as:

+ OBEROI CHEMIST + GURU RA

Immediately after the letters "RA", the original letter "M" has been vertically split in half and that portion of the wall has been demolished and a gate has been constructed. This clearly indicates that the nature of the property which was required to be maintained in the position as it existed on 14.03.1990 has been altered. The aforesaid change has been provided as an instance. A detailed examination of the reports and the photographs would indicate further such changes, including constructions and demolitions.

10. Mr Nangia's report indicates:

There seems to have been a door in the wall adjoining the aforesaid tin sheets covered space, which now seems to have been recently closed with pucca bricks.

...Except the rear hall in this block used as a workshop for service and repair of televisions which has a new tin-sheet ceiling supported by earlier angles which do not appear to be new ones.

This room has got two exhaust fans fitted in the wall. The dividing wall of this room and the front room in this block seems to have recently been plastered and white washed from inside the rear hall.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

In the left side wall of this block, an opening appeared to have recently been made in order to have a door there but it has been closed with two plywood boards joined together.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

About 200 pucca bricks having portions of cement plaster were found lying in one corner of the compound in front of the said third Block. A small quantity of stone (Rori) was also found lying along the side wall of the third Block.

The aforesaid observations in the said report of Mr R.C. Nangia clearly indicate that changes have been made by the respondents when they were prohibited from doing so by the order dated 14.03.1990.

11. In view of the uncontroverted evidence led by the petitioner, the issue has to be decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. I, therefore, hold that the respondents 2 and 3 have violated the orders of this Court passed on 14.03.1990. The question that now arises is how are the said respondents to be dealt with. Insofar as the punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is concerned, as earlier pointed out, the same falls within the ambit of Section 12 of the said Act. Contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I impose a fine of Rs 2,000/- on each of the contemnors, namely, the respondents 2 and 3.

13. Insofar as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC are concerned, the same can be granted by the court which is now seized of suit No. 609/2006. Consequently, the petitioner is granted liberty to seek the relief under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC from the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, who is seized of Suit No. 609/2006. The reliefs sought under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC shall be dealt with expeditiously by the said transferee court. The record of Suit No. 609/2006 be sent back immediately.

These petitions stand disposed of.