Delhi High Court
Shri Puneet Parkash vs Shri Jai Parkash & Ors. on 16 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 11th March, 2010
Date of Order: 16th March, 2010
CONT. CAS. (C) No. 957/2009
% 16.03.2010
Shri Puneet Parkash ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.L.Tikoo, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate
Versus
Shri Jai Parkash & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
In a suit for partition filed by the petitioner, being CS(OS) No.
189/2009, the parties arrived at a family settlement through Mediation Cell and the
family settlement was duly signed by the parties. The parties made an application
under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC to the Court for passing decree in terms of the family
settlement. The Court vide order dated 17th April, 2009 decreed the suit in terms of
the family settlement. There was one sentence in the final order that the parties shall
remain bound by the terms of settlement. The petitioner claims, that this amounted
to an undertaking given to the Court and therefore he had a right to move the
Contempt Petition against the respondents for non-compliance of the family
settlement and i.e. non-payment of the maintenance to the petitioner (son) by the
respondents (parents).
2. I consider that the Contempt Petition was not maintainable.
Provisions of Contempt of Court cannot be used as an alternative to the execution.
Since the terms of decree, had been clearly settled and the suit of the petitioner was
decreed by consent of the parties, if any part of the terms of settlement are not being
complied with, the petitioner is at liberty to execute the decree by way of filing an
Execution Petition. The Supreme Court in R.N.Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik
& Ors. (2000) 4 SSC 400 observed that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in
abundance or misused and normally it cannot be used for execution of the decree or
implementation of an order for which an alternative remedy in law is provided for.
The discretion given to the Court (of Contempt) is to be used for maintenance of
Court's dignity and majesty of law. An aggrieved party has no right to insist that
Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the
Court. Similarly in Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad (2009) 5 SSC 665
the Supreme Court observed that the contempt jurisdiction, either under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, is not intended to be
used for enforcement of money decrees or directions/orders for payment of money.
The process and concept of execution is different from the process and concept of
action for disobedience/contempt.
3. The petitioner relied on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Anr. AIR
2006 SC 1883 wherein Supreme Court observed that merely because an order or
decree is executable, would not take away the Court's jurisdiction to deal with a
matter under the Act provided the Court is satisfied that the violation of the order or
decree is such, that if proved, it would warrant punishment under Section 13 of the
Act on the ground that the contemnor, substantially interfered or tends substantially
to interfere with the due course of justice.
4. I consider that it is not a case where respondents could be stated to
be substantially interfering or had been interfering with due course of justice. It is a
case where a compromise decree was passed and thereafter both sides alleged that
the parties had not performed their part of the terms of the settlement. This can only
be gone into by the Executing Court and not by this Court under contempt
jurisdiction.
5. I do not find that it is a case where Court should exercise contempt
jurisdiction. The petition is hereby dismissed.
March 16, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
