Geeta Devi & Ors. vs Raghuvansh Prasad Singh & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1227 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CCP 29/2009 & 30/2009 in CS(OS) NO. 597/2005




                                             Date of Decision : 04.03.2010

GEETA DEVI & ORS.                                      ......    Petitioners
                                     Through:    Mr.Rajesh       Aggarwal,
                                                 Advocate.


                                        Versus


RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH & ORS.   ......       Respondents
                    Through: Mr. M.Saran, Advocate.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI


1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                             Yes.
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                  No.
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                          No.

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. These are two contempt petitions bearing CCP 29/2009 and

CCP 30/2009 titled Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Raghuvansh

Prasad Singh & Ors.

2. Although the plaintiff in both the petitions have been shown

to be as Geeta Devi, as is mentioned in the title of the suit,

however, the contempt petitions have been filed by

defendants 1 to 3 namely Sh.Raghuvansh Singh, Sh.Amit

Kumar and Sh.Sumit Kumar.

3. In the first contempt, there are 18 alleged contemnors while

as in the second contempt, there are four alleged contemnors.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case resulting in filing of the

present contempt petitions are that Smt.Geeta Devi and

others filed a suit for declaration and injunction against 16

persons. In the suit, it was alleged that there are two

properties bearing No.RZ-2A, Peepal Wali Gali, Mahavir

Enclave, New Delhi-45 and the other property bearing No.C-

4E/301, LIG Flats, Janakpuri, New Delhi in respect of which

a declaration was prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs that the

defendants 4 to 16 are the tenants of the petitioners and are

thus liable to pay the rent to the plaintiffs and the defendants

1 to 3 who are the petitioners in the contempt petitions have

no right to the properties left behind by one Late

Sh.Baleshwar Prasad. Consequently, a decree for injunction

was also prayed against tenants namely defendant Nos.4 to

16 in the main petition.

5. The suit had come up for hearing for the first time before this

Court on 5.5.2005 when this Court issued notice to the

defendants returnable for 13.9.2005, restraining the

defendant Nos.4 to 16 from making any payments of any rent

to the defendants 1 to 3 who are the petitioners in the

contempt petition.

6. On 25.1.2007, this Court had passed an order that so far as

the property bearing No.C-4E/301, LIG Flats, Janakpuri, New

Delhi is concerned, rent in respect of the said property was

being received by defendant Nos.1 to 3 namely the present

petitioners in the contempt petition and with regard to the

second property, i.e. RZ-2A, Peepal Wali Gali, Mahavir

Enclave, New Delhi-45 which was in occupation of the

different tenants, a consent order was passed on the

agreement of the parties that both the parties namely the

plaintiffs in the main suit who are the alleged contemnors in

the contempt petition and defendants 1 to 3 in the original

suit who are the present petitioners in the contempt petition

shall receive the rent in equal proportion from different

tenants till the disposal of the suit and that they shall be

liable to render account with regard to the amounts received

by them and further that they shall abide by the decision in

the suit.

7. For giving effect to this interim order, the Court was pleased

to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct inspection of the

suit premises in Mahavir Enclave and receive copies of rent

agreement from different parties as well as from tenants and

also the amount of money which was being paid by them as

rent. On 21.4.2007, this Court had directed that the

plaintiffs and the defendants respectfully were directed to file

affidavits disclosing the amount of rent received by them from

1.5.2005 onwards.

8. There are other allegations which were taken note of by the

Court which are of no relevance for the decision in the

present contempt petition.

9. Now the contempt petition which is filed by the defendant

nos. 1 to 3 in the suit and against the tenants is that they

have not paid the rent in terms of orders passed by this Court

and therefore, they be proceeded against under Section 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act for having willfully and

deliberately having violated the orders dated 25.1.2007,

21.4.2007 and 5.5.2005.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

11. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines, "Civil

contempt' as willful disobedience of the Court orders. Before

a person is proceeded for having committed contempt, two

things must be satisfied (1) that there is a disobedience and

(2) that this disobedience was must be willful that means, it

was done with a reckless and scant regard for the orders of

the Court with a view to lower its Majesty.

12. It is not every disobedience which tentamounts to contempt.

In addition to this, in the present case, the order which has

been passed by the Court is essentially an order on 25.1.2007

was passed by the Court on the basis of the consent having

been given by the parties to pass an interim order where they

had decided to apportion the rent between themselves, so far

as the tenants in the main suit were concerned. It was

therefore, a consent order and not a direction passed by the

Court of its own.

13. If an order is passed on the basis of the consent or a

compromise having been arrived at between the parties,

either at the interim stage or even at the final disposal of the

suit then this Court feels that the proceedings for contempt

would not be appropriate remedy available to either parties in

case the terms and conditions of such a consent order are not

adhered to. The appropriate remedy in such a case for the

party would be to go in for execution of that consent order.

14. If that be so, in the opinion of the Court then it cannot be

said that in the instant case a contempt action can be

initiated against the defendants. Moreover, a person should

be punished for contempt of Court only in cases where the

Majesty of the Court is lowered by willful, contumacious,

disobedience of the orders. Every disobedience should not

call for initiation of contempt proceedings against the

delinquent party if it is dine, it will lose the very efficacy of the

corrupt proceedings.

15. In addition to this in the present case, the question of

payment of rent or the apportionment of rent entails a minute

calculation and rendition of accounts and by the parties and I

feel by initiating the contempt, these aspects cannot be gone

into against the defendants or against the consenting of

parties. Appropriate remedy in such a situation would be to

go for execution, where the parties will be at liberty to bring

on record by way of an affidavit the evidence to show as to

what is the total amount payable by a party and what has

been actually received by them so that appropriate steps

coercive or otherwise are taken for recovery of the remaining

amount.

16. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that both

the contempt petitions which have been filed by the

applicant/petitioners who are defendants 1 to 3 in the

original suit are totally misconceived and accordingly, the

same are dismissed. However, the dismissal of the present

contempt petitions does not preclude the

defendants/petitioners in the contempt from taking such

appropriate steps for executing the orders of the Court as

may be permissible in law.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MARCH 04, 2010 RN