Delhi High Court

Satish Verma vs Jeetindra Churamani And Anr on 27 September, 2011

Author: G. S. Sistani

03.
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005

%                                    Judgment Delivered on: 27.09.2011

       SATISH VERMA                                             ..... Plaintiff
                             Through :    Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Swastik
                                          Singh, Advs.

                     versus

       JEETINDRA CHURAMANI AND ANR.                 ..... Defendants
                      Through : Mr. Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with
                                Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. for the
                                defendants in the suit and petitioner
                                in CCP(O)144/2010.
                                Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Adv. for
                                Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia.
       CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

          1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the judgment?
          2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
          3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Present contempt petition has been filed by defendants under

Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking a

direction of this Court that contempt proceedings be initiated

against Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia.

2. This matter has a chequered history and, thus, it is necessary to

give a brief background of the case.

3. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of an

Agreement dated 30.1.2005, entered into between the parties

(plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit) with respect to

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 Farm House No.17, Central Drive, Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi,

constructed and developed on the land forming part of Khasra

NO.1335/2 (0-9), 1335/5 (2-02), 1335/6 (1-09) and 1336 (4-16),

along with super structure existing thereon. The plaintiff also seeks

recovery of Rs.4.60 crores in his favour and against the defendants.

4. While issuing summons in the suit and notice in the application on

10.5.2005, this Court had restrained the defendants from

transferring, selling, encumbering, creating third party rights or

parting with possession of the suit property. The interim order

dated 10.5.2005 was confirmed by this court on 23.7.2008.

Defendants thereafter filed an application being I.A.No.10810/2008

under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking modification/clarification of

the interim order granted by this Court, wherein on 24.11.2008 the

following order was passed by this Court:

"IA No. 10810/2008 (of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC)in CS (OS) No. 631/2005

Though the defendants have applied for letting out of the property which is a farm house, it is not deemed expedient to allow letting out of the property. However, the defendants are permitted to allow use and occupation of the property to said Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia subject to said Gurmeet Singh Wadalia not claiming to be a tenant or in possession of the said property and further subject to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia filing an undertaking in the form of affidavit before this Court setting out the terms and conditions settled between him and the defendant and further undertaking to, on the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of use and occupation, remove himself from the property and not claiming any rights therein and not corresponding with any authorities whatsoever adversely to the interest of the defendants.

Let the advance copy of the said affidavit of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia be supplied to the counsel for the plaintiff within one week.

List on 8th December, 2008

It is clarified that Gurmeet Singh Wadalia shall be permitted use and occupation of the property only after the further orders of this Court."

5. On 18.12.2008, while allowing I.A.No.10810/2008 and rejecting the

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia, was permitted to occupy the suit premises. Operative

portion of the order dated 18.12.2008 reads as under:

"The counsel for the plaintiff otherwise is satisfied with the affidavit of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia.

The undertakings of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia as contained in the affidavit are accepted by this court and Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia is ordered to be bound by the same. It is stated that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was present in this court earlier but had to leave. The defendants to prior to allowing Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia use of the property in terms of his affidavit to have a copy of this order signed from him in further token of acceptance hereof. In the event of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia not ceasing use of the property after one year or as and when directed by the court, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia shall be liable for consequences for breaching of undertaking given to the court.

Application is disposed of."

6. Admittedly, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, did not sign the order

sheet as directed by this Court on 18.12.2008, however, an

application being I.A.No.141/2009 was filed by Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC on 3.1.2009, wherein it

was alleged by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia that defendants had

duped him of Rs.81.00 lakhs, as the defendants had entered into

an agreement with him with regard to sale of suit property for a

total sale consideration of Rs.5.40 crores, out of which,

approximately a sum of Rs.81.00 lakhs was paid by him to the

defendants - by means of two pay orders in the sum of Rs.1.81

lakhs, each, both dated 25.8.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank; Rs.67,40

lakhs was paid by him in cash to the defendants; and two post

dated cheques bearing no.235184 and 235185 dated 1.12.2008,

drawn on HSBC Bank in the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, each, (in total

Rs.10.00 lakhs) were handed over by him to the defendants and

further the applicant was misled and cohersed to file the

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 undertaking in the Court. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia claimed

himself to be a purchaser of the suit property. The plaintiff

thereafter filed an application, being I.A.No.9471/2009, under Order

XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, alleging that defendants had committed

contempt on the ground that defendants had entered into a

transaction with Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia despite the interim

order granted by this Court on 10.5.2005, which was also confirmed

by this Court on 23.7.2008. The defendants also filed a contempt

petition, being CCP(O) 60/2009, alleging contempt against Mr.

Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, wherein the following prayer was made by

the defendants:

"11. That the petitioners submit that acts of the respondent are in total violation of the undertakings given by the respondent to this Hon‟ble Court and accepted by this Hon‟ble Court while granting permission to allow the respondent use and occupation of the property. The respondent is guilty of willful and deliberate contempt of this Hon‟ble Court and liable to be punished in accordance with law.

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to proceed against the respondent for contempt of this Hon‟ble Court and punish the respondent in accordance with law and be further pleased to direct the respondent to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property bearing No.17 Central Drive, Chattarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi to the petitioners/defendants."

7. On 23.12.2009, while considering both the applications, being

I.A.Nos.9471/2009 & 141/2009 and the contempt petition

No.60/2009, filed by plaintiff, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia and

defendants, respectively, following order was passed by this Court.

9. The applicant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, has not placed on record any receipt showing cash payment of Rs.67.40 lac. It does not sound to reason that a person who had not even executed the Agreement to Sell would part with such a huge cash without a receipt. However, I consider that in order to adjudicate upon the issue whether the defendants violated the orders of the court, it would be necessary to record evidence on this issue. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had filed an affidavit in the court about occupying the premises in accordance with the court orders. His plea that he executed the affidavit on some assurance of the defendants cannot be taken on the face value unless he is subject to cross- examination by the plaintiff and the defendants. His plea that he had entered into

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 premises in part performance of the sale agreement in August itself is also to be decided by way of evidence. I, therefore, consider that the applications and the contempt petition filed in the suit can be decided only after evidence on this issue is recorded. Thus, following issues are framed :-

1. If the defendants were guilty of violating the interim injunction order granted by the court on 10th May, 2005 and confirmed on 23rd July, 2008?

2. Whether the applicant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was guilty of contempt?

10. The evidence on these issues be recorded along with the evidence in the main case. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, it is directed that the applicant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, who had filed affidavit before the court shall be bound by the order passed by the court in the suit of the plaintiff and also in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. He would be at liberty to sue the defendants for his rights viz-a-viz defendants. The applicant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, shall file his affidavit by way of evidence within four weeks from today.

11. List before Joint Registrar for fixing dates of cross-examination and for evidence in the main case on 25th February, 2010."

8. While passing the order dated 23.12.2009 this court was of the

view that the matter would require leading of evidence and

accordingly issues were framed.

9. In this background after a gap of one year, the second contempt

petition, being CCP(O)144/2010, has been filed by the defendants

on 23.12.2009, which is being decided by the present order.

10. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

contempt petitioner [defendant in the suit], submits that while

passing the order dated 23.12.2009 the Court has taken into

consideration various factors and has also come to the conclusion

that both the applications and the contempt petition can only be

decided after the evidence is recorded.

11. Dr. Arun Mohan has justified filing of the second contempt petition

on the ground that in the second contempt petition the prayer

made by the petitioner is that without deciding as to whether Mr.

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 Gurmeet Singh Wadalia is guilty of contempt or not the undertaking

given to this Court by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia should be

enforced and warrants of possession should be issued for the suit

property.

12. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

contempt petitioner (defendants in the suit), submits that

defendants are willing for appointment of a Court Receiver, who

may keep the possession of the suit property till the disposal of the

suit, however, prays that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia should not be

permitted to flout the undertaking given Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia to Court. Senior counsel further submits that any petition

for contempt is to be decided in two parts, firstly, the order should

be enforced and secondly in case the person is found guilty then

the punishment is to be awarded. Senior counsel has further

justified filing of the second contempt petition on the ground that

while passing the order dated 23.12.2009 question of grant of

possession was kept open by the Court. In support of this

submission senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to

the relevant portion of the order dated 23.12.2009, which is

reproduced below:

"The evidence on these issues be recorded along with the evidence in the main case. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, it is directed that the applicant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, who had filed affidavit before the court shall be bound by the order passed by the court in the suit of the plaintiff and also in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. He would be at liberty to sue the defendants for his rights viz-a-viz defendants....."

13. Dr. Arun Mohan, senior counsel, submits that in the concluding

portion of the order dated 23.12.2009 the Court had issued a

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 declaration that Mr.Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, who had filed

affidavit/undertaking before the Court, that he would be bound by

the order passed by the Court in the suit. It is contended that the

order refers to order dated 18.12.2008 by which the undertaking of

Mr.Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was accepted. Dr. Arun Mohan further

submits that by the order dated 18.12.2008, passed in the suit, the

undertaking given by Mr.Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was accepted by

the Court and he was granted permission to occupy the suit

premises for a period of one year. Senior counsel further submits

that although liberty was granted to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to

sue the defendants for enforcing his rights, however, Mr. Gurmeet

Singh Wadalia has not taken any steps to safeguard his rights. Dr.

Arun Mohan, senior counsel, contends that in cases of specific

performance a party must approach the court expeditiously, as

observed in a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil

Appeal Nos.7254-7256/2002 titled as Mrs. Saradamani

Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors., more particularly para

28(iii), wherein the Apex Court had observed that although

limitation for filing a suit for specific performance is three years but

it does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to

file a suit and obtain specific performance. Para 28(iii) of the

judgment reads as under:

"28 (iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time-limits stipulated in the agreement. Courts will also „frown‟ upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.

The three years period is intended to assist purchasers in special cases, as for

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 example, where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser."

14. Dr. Arun Mohan, senior counsel, submits that Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia has not approached the Court to safe guard his interest in

view of the fact that there is no written agreement between the

defendants and Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia and handing over

possession of the suit property in the absence of written agreement

without paying necessary stamp duty would be hit by the

provisions of Section 23A of The Indian Stamp Act and would also

require registration. Senior counsel further submits that a careful

reading of para 10 of the order passed by Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J,

on 23.12.2009 gives liberty to the defendants, which has been

exercised by the defendants by filing the present contempt petition

for enforcement of the undertaking given by Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia to the court. Dr. Arun Mohan, senior counsel next submits

that the prayer made in this contempt petition could not have been

pressed by the defendants at the time of hearing of the two

applications and the earlier contempt petition, as one year period,

as permitted by this court, had not elapsed.

15. Present contempt petition has been opposed by both, learned

counsel for the plaintiff and by learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia. While, Mr. Rahul Gupta,

learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that it is the defendants,

who is really guilty of contempt and are the real villains of the

peace inasmuch that defendants had entered into a transaction

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 with Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, in violation of the injunction order

which was sought to be legalized by misleading the court and by

filing an application being I.A.No.10810/2008 under Order XXXIX

Rule 4 CPC, and thus, have violated the injunction order passed by

this Court on 10.5.2005, which was confirmed on 23.7.2008.

Counsel further submits that the purpose of filing an application for

modification was not as innocent as it seems as at the time of filing

of the said application the defendants had already sold the

property to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia. The aim and purpose of

the applicant was to legalise the transaction entered into between

the defendants and Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia in utter disregard

and in gross violation of the orders passed by this Court.

16. Counsel Mr. Gupta and Mr. Chadha, counsel for Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia, submit that a second contempt petition is not

maintainable as in the earlier contempt petition being

CCP(O)60/2009, an identical prayer was made by defendants

which was rejected.

17. Both, counsel for Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia and respondent,

submits that interpretation sought to be given by Dr. Arun Mohan is

an afterthought and assuming that it is taken to be correct then

there is no justification, reason or ground as to why this petition

has been filed after a gap of one year or why no review or

modification was sought by the applicant. It is submitted that the

order dated 23.12.2009 in fact takes care of all the eventualities

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 and the said order has attained finality.

18. Mr. Amit Chaddha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, submits that present contempt petition

is a gross abuse of the process of the court and the stand taken by

the petitioner in the present contempt petition is extremely

dishonest. Senior counsel further submits that Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia was not aware about the dispute between the plaintiff and

defendant, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was completely kept in the

dark and he was forced to part with large sums of money and the

present contempt petition has been filed primarily to derail the trial

as during trial the dishonesty of the defendants would be exposed.

Senior counsel next submits that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was

handed over possession of the suit property by the defendants in

the month of August, 2008, even prior to filing of

I.A.No.10810/2008 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, by the

defendant, which is evident from various independent documents.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia had applied for a Tata Sky connection,

air conditioners were installed and contractors were employed for

various renovation works including construction of swimming pool.

Senior counsel next submits that present contempt petition is not

maintainable as the prayer made in this contempt petition is

identical to the earlier contempt petition [CCP(O)60/2009] filed by

the defendants.

19. It is submitted by Mr. Amit Chaddha that while hearing both the

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and contempt petition,

the question with regard to handing over possession was also

argued before the Court and this prayer was rejected. Elaborating

his arguments further Mr. Amit Chaddha submits that in fact in para

10 of the order dated 23.12.2009 the court has simply observed

that "in view of the peculiar circumstances the applicant, Mr.

Gurmeet Singh Wadalia, who had filed affidavit before the Court,

shall be bound by the order passed by the Court in the suit". Senior

counsel next submits that this specific observation was passed as

Mr.Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was not a party in the main suit for

specific performance and accordingly if the suit was decreed in

favour of the plaintiff, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia would be bound

by the judgment and decree and not that he was to vacate the

premises as per the undertaking given to Court. Mr. Amit Chaddha,

senior counsel, also submits that while hearing the contempt

petition in case the Judge was inclined to pass an order with regard

to handing over possession a specific order would have been

passed at the first instance and in case defendants were aggrieved

by the order dated 23.12.2009, passed by Dhingra, J, either the

order would have been assailed or an application for clarification or

modification would have been filed by the defendants. It is next

submitted by Mr. Amit Chaddha, senior counsel, that present

contempt petition filed by the defendants is also an afterthought.

Mr. Amit Chaddha, senior counsel, while supporting the arguments

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 of Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that

there is no explanation rendered by the defendants as to why the

defendants waited for one year before filing the present contempt

petition.

20. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the

orders dated 24.11.2008, 18.12.2008 and the detailed orders

passed on 23.12.2009. The basic facts which are not in dispute are

that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance

of an agreement dated 30.1.2005, entered into between the parties

(plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit and petitioner in the

contempt petition) with regard to the suit property. Interim order

was granted by this Court on 10.5.2005, which was subsequently

confirmed by this Court on 23.7.2008. The defendants (petitioner

herein) moved an application being I.A.No.10810/2008 under order

XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking modification/clarification of the order.

The interim order was modified and on 18.12.2008 the undertaking

given by Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was accepted by the Court

and he was permitted to use the suit property for a period of one

year on various terms and conditions.

21. Soon after order dated 18.12.2008 was passed Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia filed I.A.No.141/2009 on 3.1.2009 bringing to the notice of

the Court the fraud played upon him by the defendant (peitioner

herein) I.A.No.9471/2009 was filed by the plaintiff against the

defendant and in a way supported the stand of Mr. Gurmeet Singh

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 Wadalia.

22. The defendants (petitioner herein) then filed CCP 60/2009 with the

prayer that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to proceed against the

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia for contempt of this Hon‟ble Court and

punish the Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia in accordance with law and

be further sought a direction to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to hand

over peaceful vacant possession of the property bearing No.17

Central Drive, Chattarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi to the

petitioners/defendants.

23. Present contempt petition, being CCP(O)144/2010, has been filed

by the defendants with the following prayers:

1. Proceedings be initiated against S. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia for not removing himself from the premises No.17 Central Drive, Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi and thereby committing, and continuing to commit, contempt by not removing himself from the premises; and

2. Enforcement of the undertaking for removing himself (S: Gurmeet Singh Wadalia) from the property No.17, Central Drive, Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi, by issue of warrants for possession in respect of property No.17 Central Drive, Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi and delivery of possession to the owners (i.e. defendants).

24. A reading of prayers made in both the contempt petitions would

show that except for change of wording in both the contempt

petition, the defendants had inter alia prayed that Mr. Gurmeet

Singh Wadalia be directed to hand over possession of the suit

premises. The relief claimed in both the contempt petitions is

identical. By an order dated 23.12.2009 issues were framed. While

considering both the applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and

contempt petition the Court was of the view that it would be

necessary to record evidence.

25. The submissions of Mr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel for the

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 contempt petition/defendants, that no order with regard to handing

over possession could have been passed in the earlier contempt

petition as the period of one year had not elapsed, is without any

force in view of the fact that when the order dated 23.12.2009, was

pronounced the period of one year had already elapsed. Secondly,

the defendant had filed earlier contempt petition alleging willful

disobedience of the order passed by this Court and in case

according to the defendant Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia was guilty

then why would he be allowed to stay in the property by the Court.

Another factor which would prima facie show that the conduct of

the defendant is not above board is the fact that Mr. Gurmeet Singh

Wadalia had refused to sign the order sheet as directed by this

Court in the order dated 18.12.2008 by itself would amount to

undertaking not being accepted and, thus, the possession of Mr.

Gurmeet Singh Wadalia would deemed to have been unauthorized.

The order dated 18.12.2008 was in fact a conditional order. The

Court while passing the order dated 23.12.2009, had directed the

defendants, that prior to allowing Mr.Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to use

the property in terms of his affidavit, to have a copy of this order

signed from Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia in token of acceptance,

hereof no justification or reasoning has been offered as to why the

defendants handed over possession to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia

without complying with the directions contained in the order dated

18.12.2008 which would show that possession was already handed

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 over by the defendant to Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia prior to the

Court granting permission and modifying the order. I am also

unable to accept the argument of Dr. A. Mohan that no order with

regard to possession was passed on 23.12.2009, as the period of

one year had not elapsed and, thus, the Judge did not pass any

order with regard to possession is not correct as the order did not

render such a finding, when the order was pronounced and the one

year period had elapsed when the order was pronounced and in

case for any reason the same either had escaped the attention of

the Court or assuming the period of one year had not elapsed I find

no justification or reasoning for the defendants (petitioner herein)

in not approaching the same Court expeditiously for

clarification/modification or review or not filing a contempt petition

as early as possible. The submission made by learned counsel for

the defendants (petitioner herein) that para 10 of the order dated

23.12.2009 passed by Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J, is in fact a

declaration that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia shall be bound by the

order passed by the Court in the suit and sounds extremely

attractive but the same cannot be accepted as the court was

referring to the final order which would be passed in the suit and

even otherwise given the facts of this case had this been the

intention of this Court. Nothing prevented the Court to pass a

direct order directing Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia to vacate and

hand over the possession or face the consequences. Even

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 otherwise the interpretation sought to be given to the concluding

portion of the order of Dhingra, J, as he then was is unacceptable.

In view of the fact that the consequences of this declaration would

be that Wadalia should hand over possession and such a

declaration could not have been made prior to passing of the final

order on merits, which question was kept open as issues were

framed and parties were directed to lead evidence, so to say that a

declaration was made prior to holding Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia

guilty would be misplaced. As far as the submission made by

learned counsel for the defendants that no specific issue has been

framed by the Court with regard to handing over possession in view

of the declaration. I am of the view that no separate issue is

required to be framed as in case the Court comes to the conclusion

that Mr. Gurmeet Singh Wadalia is guilty of contempt, the court is

not powerless and the police can be directed to enforce the

undertaking given to Court. In the case of D.M. Belgamvala v.

Tamilnadu Real Estates (P) Ltd., reported at 2010 (12) SCALE

379 and also in the case of Amar Nath Roy and Others v. Arun

Kumar Kedia and Another, reported at (2011) 6 SCC 448, the

Apex Court has observed:

"1. Taken on Board.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force.

4. We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time

CCP(O) 144/2010 IN CS(OS) 631/2005 granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt proceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own.

5. If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance.

6. The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly."

26. The submission made by learned senior counsel for the defendants

that a Receiver may be appointed to take possession cannot be

considered at this stage as such a prayer could have only been

made by the contempt petitioners/defendants at the time of

hearing of both the applications and the contempt petition filed by

the defendants and the order dated 23.12.2009 has in the

meanwhile attained finality. In view of above, I find the present

contempt petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

27. Since this Court is also informed that affidavits by way of evidence