Delhi High Court
Smt. Gayatri Gupta vs Smt. Ruby Sharma on 30 August, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% C.C.P.(O) 09 of 2008
in
CS(OS) 1696 of 2007
+ Date of Decision: 30th August, 2013
# SMT. GAYATRI GUPTA ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Gautam Anand, Adv.
Versus
$ SMT. RUBY SHARMA ...Respondent
Through: Mr. A.Maitri,advocate for
respondent-contemnor
Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Adv. for
defendant nos.2 & 3 in suit
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv.
for defendant no.5 in suit
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
In the suit for specific performance of contract dated 4th
June,2007 for sale of one DDA flat in Dwarka entered into between
the plaintiff-vendee and the respondent-vendor, who was the sole
defendant at the time of the institution of the suit, this Court had by an
ex parte order dated 14th September, 2007 restrained the sole defendant
Ruby Sharma, who is now the sole respondent in this contempt
petition, from creating any third party interest in the suit property till
the next date of hearing which was fixed for 13th November,2007. The
respondent-defendant after entering appearance in the suit informed the
Court through her counsel on 13th November,2007 that she had
already sold the suit property on 2nd November,2007.
2. Thereafter the present contempt application was filed by the
plaintiff on 18th Decmber,2007 and notice of the application was issued
to the sole defendant at that time, respondent herein. She filed her reply
denying the allegation that she had committed contempt of this Court in
any manner.
3. Though in the entire contempt application the plaintiff had
simply pleaded that the defendant had been served with the injunction
order but it was not pleaded as to in what manner the respondent-
defendant no.1 had committed contempt of this Court. However,
during the course of hearing it was clarified by the counsel for the
plaintiff that the defendant had committed contempt of Court by selling
the suit property on 2nd November,2007 to two persons(who already
stand impleaded in the suit now as defendant nos. 2 and 3), despite the
stay order of this Court having been served upon her in
September,2007 itself.
4. This Court had noticed in the proceedings of 13th November,2007
that the respondent-defendant was served on 7th November,2007 and
subsequently vide order dated 24th August,2008 the plaintiff's
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.(being I.A.No.
10540/2007), on which ex parte stay was granted on 14th
September,2007, was dismissed as having become infructuous because
of the sale of the suit property in favour of a third party having already
taken place.
5. Therefore, there is no contempt committed by the respondent Ms.
Ruby Sharma.
6. As noticed already, after the Court was informed about the sale
of the suit property by the defendant-respondent to a couple the
husband wife were impleaded in the suit as defendant nos. 2 and 3. The
also sold the property and the purchaser from them was also impleaded
as defendant no.4 and despite service by way of publication she did not
enter appearance in the suit. She also sold the suit property and the lady
who purchased from her also stands impleaded in the suit as defendant
no.5. The record shows that all those subsequent sellers had also sold
the property at a time when they had not been served with the stay
order passed against them also.
7. This contempt petition is therefore, dismissed. It is, however,
made clear that the plaintiff still has a right to invoke the principle of
lis pendens at an appropriate stage in the suit.
P.K. BHASIN, J
AUGUST 30, 2013
