Meenu Bhar vs Renu Khosla & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1976 Del

*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CS (OS) No. 1033/2004

                                  Date of decision : 7.11.2008

#     MEENU BHAR                       ..... PLAINTIFF
!                  Through : Mr. Ajay Dahiya, Advocate


                             Versus

$     RENU KHOSLA & ANR.          .....DEFENDANTS
^        Through : Mr. Alok Bhachawat, Advocate.

%
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

     (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
         allowed to see the judgment?

     (2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

     (3) Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest ?

                           ORDER

ARUNA SURESH, J.

IA No.10907/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC)

1. This Application has been filed by the Plaintiff

under Order 39 Rule 2-A Code of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) read with Section

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that on

21.09.2004 this court was pleased to direct the

parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit

property i.e. J-29, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi and

the parties in terms of the said order were bound

to maintain the status quo with respect to the

property as it existed on the date of the order, and

defendant No.2 was never in possession of the said

property and therefore was not entitled to the use

and occupation of the said property. Despite status

quo order, defendant No.2 who allegedly

purchased the respective share of defendant No.1

in the said property started carrying out civil work

in the said property for the purposes of setting up

an office in the said premises in contravention of

the said order. The Plaintiff was residing in

Malaysia and when she visited the suit property on

21.09.2006, at about 12.00 P.M. she found that one

Bishen Singh Kathayat claimed that he had taken

half portion of the ground floor including some

area of the portion belonging to the Plaintiff on

rent from defendant No.1 to run office and had

broken the lock of bath room on the ground floor

falling in the share of the plaintiff and she also

found that some office material was also placed in

the premises which Bishen Singh Kathayat

admitted as belonging to him. She also found that

water motor installed in the suit property had been

removed and a new motor was installed in place of

the same.

2. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the said

actions on the part of defendant No.2 are in

violation of the order of this court dated 21.09.2004

which are willful and deliberate and amounts to

contempt of court, hence the present application.

3. Defendant No.2 contested this application

contending inter alia that on 21.09.2004 the court

granted status quo in respect of the suit property to

be maintained by the parties till the next date of

hearing and thereafter the said status quo order

was never continued as there was no request made

by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff to extend

the interim order and thereafter the interim

order/status quo order came to an end by efflux of

time on 17.01.2005; any act on the part of

defendant No.2 in respect of suit property did not

amount to contempt of court as there was no

violation on his part of any of the court‟s order

directing the parties to maintain status quo.

Defendant No.2 claimed himself to be in possession

of the property in question much prior to the filing

of the present suit as he purchased the suit

property on 30.07.2004 from defendant No.1.

Defendant No.2 has also denied having rented out

the suit property to Shri Bishen Singh Kathayat,

whom he did not know and that he was himself

using the suit property so purchased by him for

residential-cum-office purposes and there was no

need for any civil work or alteration to be made in

the suit property. He has prayed that the

application being false and frivolous deserves

dismissal.

4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Dahiya, learned counsel for

the Plaintiff, Mr. Alok Bhachawat, learned counsel

for the defendants and have perused the record.

5. The case came up for admission before this court

on 21st September, 2004 and the plaint was

accompanied with another application being IA

No.6227/2004 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

While issuing notice on the said application, the

court was pleased to order as follows:-

"Let status quo in respect of the property i.e. J.29, Lajpat Nagar- III, New Delhi be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 be made within three days. Dasti."

6. On 17.01.2005 defendants put in appearance and

sought time to file written statement. Perusal of

order dated 17.01.2005 indicates that neither there

was any request nor the court thought it proper to

extend the interim order dated 21.09.2004 any

further and thereafter the matter was listed for 29th

April, 2005. Even in the order sheet dated

29.4.2005 there is no mention of any continuation

of the interim order. On 23rd July, 2005 reply to the

application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was

filed and it was the counsel for the plaintiff who

sought an adjournment for filing the rejoinder. It is

pertinent to mention here that there was no

request on the part of the learned counsel for the

plaintiff for extension of the interim order, which

even otherwise came to an end on 17.01.2005 by

efflux of time. Unless the interim order was

extended by the court it could survive only upto

17.1.2005. The matter was adjourned to

12.08.2005 then to 29.09.2005, 14.11.2005,

10.01.2006, 16.02.2006, 13.03.2006, 03.04.2006,

4.05.2006, 17.05.2006, 20.07.2006, 27.09.2006 for

various reasons and some proceedings were

conducted during this period.

7. On 6th October, 2006 there is mention of interim

orders passed on 21.09.2004 and it was ordered

that the said interim order be continued. In the

interregnum period, there was no stay between 17th

January, 2005 till 6th October, 2006. Plaintiff is

alleged to have visited the suit premises on

21.09.2006. She did not find any construction work

going on in the premises except she alleged that

the lock of her bath room was broken and also

some office material was found lying there. Even

averments in the application do not constitute any

violation of the court‟s order or any contempt of

court nor these allegations satisfy the requirements

for initiating proceedings against defendant No.2

for the alleged contempt of court.

8. Plaintiff is at liberty to move the court under Order

39 Rule 2 (a) CPC, if defendant has committed any

disobedience of any injunction granted or any other

order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, or

breach of any of the terms in which the injunction

was granted or the order violated by the

defendants, and the court on receipt of such

application can order the property of the person

guilty of breach to be attached and can also order

such person to be detained in civil prison.

9. The exact import of the words "Status quo" will

have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in

IA No.6227/2004 (Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC).

One of the prayers made in the said application

was, "to restrain the defendants, particularly

defendant No.2 and/or anybody claiming under

them from demolishing/renovating/ constructing/

altering the whole or any portion of the suit

premises; and from occupying the premises in

question or permitting any other person to occupy

the said premises for any purpose; and from

restraining him from transferring, alienating,

encumbering, selling, or parting with possession or

dealing with the suit premises in any manner.

Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for

the Plaintiff that the order of this court dated

21.09.2004 was violated by defendant No.2 is

without any substance. There are no allegations

against defendant No.2 that he had demolished,

renovated, constructed or altered the whole or any

portion of the premises or made any attempt to do

the same. Similarly, there are no allegations

against defendant No.2 that during subsistence of

the status quo order he had transferred, alienated

and encumbered or sold or parted with possession

in whole or in part or had dealt with the suit

property in any such manner. As regards prayer for

restraining defendant No.2 from occupying the

premises in question, defendant No.2 has claimed

himself to be in possession of the suit property

since the time he purchased it.

10. Clause 3 of the Sale Deed Ex.P2 executed by

defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 reads

as follows:-

"3. That the vendor has handed over the actual, vacant and peaceful, physical possession of the said portion of the said property to the vendee at the time of execution of this Sale Deed."

11. Thus, it is clear that at the time when the Sale

Deed was executed, defendant No.1 had handed

over actual, physical, vacant possession of the suit

property to defendant No.2.

12. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that

defendant No.2 violated the order of this court

dated 21.09.2004 whereby the parties were

directed to maintain status quo in respect of the

suit property i.e. J-29, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.

13. Hence, I find no merit in the application and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 07, 2008 vk