Delhi High Court
Jagdev Singh Sethi vs Kanwaljit Singh Sethi on 9 December, 2015
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 683/2014
JAGDEV SINGH SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Mr Rajmangal Kumar &
Ms Sushma Yadav, Advs.
versus
KANWALJIT SINGH SETHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr I.D. Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 09.12.2015
1. This is a contempt petition filed, alleging that the respondent has
violated the order of this court dated 27.08.2009. It is the case of the
petitioner/ appellant that vide order dated 27.08.2009, while admitting the
appeal, the court had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that
date. To be noted, that order was passed in CM No. 10205/2009.
2. Upon issuance of notice in the captioned petition, the respondent has
filed his reply. In the reply the respondent has, inter alia, stated that he is a
Non-Resident Indian and that he was not present in India in June, 2014. It
is further averred that, in so far as the subject property is concerned, some
renovation was carried out which included painting, polishing and putting in
place the flooring. It is further averred by the respondent that there were no
material structural changes carried out in the building, which is otherwise
very old. These so called renovations, according to the respondent, were
carried out as there was a wedding in the family.
3. Furthermore, reliance is placed by the respondent on a letter dated
02.07.2014, issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, wherein he
was informed that under Bye-law 6.4.1 of the building Bye-laws, neither
notice was required nor any building permit was necessary where alterations
are carried qua the existing structure. By way of example, the said letter
narrates alterations, such as, renewal of roof, re-roofing, flooring, erection or
re-erection of internal partitions, reconstruction of portion of building
damaged by storm, rains, fire and earthquake or any other natural calamity.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Clearly, the order
passed in the interlocutory application for injunction moved by the
petitioner/ appellant merely directed the parties to "....maintain status quo as
of today.....".
4.1 In order to know, what was the scope of the interlocutory application,
I called for the appeal file.
4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant fairly concedes that in
the application, in which the aforementioned order was passed, which is CM
No. 10205/2009, there is no reference to any construction. The only aspect
that was brought to bear in the application, was with regard to stay of the
impugned judgement and decree dated 29.04.2009.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, especially, that which
pointed to the fact that the status quo order did not specify, at least not in so
many words, that parties were required to restrain themselves from working
on the structure, and given the fact that the alterations are, prima facie, in the
nature of renovation, I intend to give the benefit of doubt to the respondent.
5.1 Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notice issued to
the respondent, in these proceedings, is discharged.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 09, 2015
kk
