Kuldip Kaur vs Smt Surinder Kaur
2015 Latest Caselaw 1071 Del

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                         Judgment delivered on: 5th February, 2015

+                             CONT.CAS(C) No. 795/2013

KULDIP KAUR                                             ..... Petitioner
                       Represented by:   Mr.Anil Sapra, Senior
                                         Advocate with Ms. Suman
                                         Malhotra, Advocate.

               Versus


SMT SURINDER KAUR                                   ..... Respondent
             Represented by:             Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary,
                                         Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying with the order dated 24.07.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Delhi, in Probate Case No. 244/1981, titled as 'Smt. Surinder Kaur Vs. State & Ors.'

2. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit to the instant petition, wherein stated that she was not aware of the facts. She is an issueless widow, whose husband had expired long ago on

06.12.1980 and she had been living all alone in the suit property at that time.

3. It is further stated that Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal and his wife Mrs. Meera Mittal, being neighbours of the respondent, had taken undue advantage of her living alone in the suit property. Accordingly, the respondent had executed a sale deed, without taking payment of any consideration, in favour of the abovenamed Mrs. Meera Mittal. The respondent further submitted that the respondent had not committed any contempt of court either intentionally or deliberately. She herself got trapped in the hands of above named persons. There had never been any intention to disobey the orders passed by the courts. The respondent has tendered unconditional apology for defying the order dated 24.07.1984.

4. I note, vide order dated 24.07.1984 passed in Probate Case No.244/1981, the learned District Judge directed the petitioner (respondent herein) not to sell the property or create any charge thereon.

5. During arguments, Mr. Anil Sapra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the transaction which had been entered into by the respondent was in gross violation of the ad interim order passed by the court, therefore, this Court may pass directions declaring the same as nullity ipso facto.

6. To support his submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of All Bengal Excise Licensess Association Vs. Raghavendra Singh & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 1386, wherein the Apex Court held that:-

"27. In the instant case, the respondents have conducted the auction quite contrary to and in violation of an injunction order passed by the High Court. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of a restraint order or an injunction order against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our opinion, the inherent power will not only be available under Section 151 CPC as available to us in such a case but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public interest. As rightly observed by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in AIR 1975 Madras 270, that as a matter of judicial policy the Court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's orders. We, therefore, cancel all the auctions held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 and direct the respondent Nos. 1-4 not to allow the successful bidders to continue the business and shall stop them forthwith and submit a report to this Court of strict compliance. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the appellant Association in the writ petition filed by them before the High Court which is pending. All the respondent Nos. 1-4 are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of the High Court have to be

obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court - for that matter any Court should not be trifled with. We have already found hereinabove that they have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court evidently. It is equally necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that the mantra of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations and infractions of the orders of the High Court or of this Court. We, therefore hold them guilty of contempt of Court and do hereby censure their conduct. Though a copy of this order could be sent which shall form part of the annual confidential record of service of each of the said officers, we refrain from doing so by taking a lenient view of the matter considering the future prospects of the officers. As already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Courts of law. The civil appeal stands allowed. Though this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs, again taking a lenient view, we say no costs."

7. Also relied upon the case of C. Elumalai & Ors. Vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2214, wherein the Apex Court held that:-

"15. On consideration of various aspects, we are satisfied that there has been a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court's order. We, therefore, in exercise of the court's jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India impose exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- on each of the contemnors to be deposited to the registry of the High Court within a period of eight weeks. On deposit being made, the amount shall be transferred to the National Legal Services

Authority. In case of non payment, the contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Any third party right created after order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP No. 19924 of 2006 is of no consequence and stands set aside."

8. Further relied upon the case of Mr.Rajesh Jain Vs. Sh. Devender Kumar Saigal & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2214, wherein while deciding IA Nos. 2122/2007, 2906/2008 and 11879/2008 in CS(OS) No. 1565/2006 vide order dated 01.06.2012, this Court held that:-

"59. It is equally well settled that where third party rights have been created in respect of the disputed property in violation of the orders of the Court, any such third party rights are of no consequence and liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai and CS(OS) No.1565/2006 Page 59 of 60 Others Vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Another (2009) 4 SCC 213, where there was continuous violation of the order of the Court dated 19.03.2007, as in the instant case, apart from imposing exemplary costs of ` 2,00,000/- on each of the contemnors, directed that any third party right created after the order dated 19.03.2007 was of no consequence and stood set aside.

60. In view of the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is directed that the contemnors, Mr. Devender Kumar Saigal, Mr. Atul Mahendru and Mr. Jorawar Singh are sentenced to pay costs of ` 1 lac each, which shall be deposited with the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The costs shall be paid within a period of six weeks, failing which the aforesaid contemnors shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 days each on that count. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be transferred to the Delhi Legal Services Authority. It is further directed that third party rights created after 17th August, 2006 shall be of no consequence and are hereby set aside. Physical possession of the property shall be restored by the contemnors No.2 and 6 (contemnors No.2 and 4 in IA No.2906/2008) to the defendant/contemnor No.1, CS(OS) No.1565/2006 Page 60 of 60 Mr. Devender Kumar Saigal, who is restrained from, in any manner, dealing with the property till the disposal of the suit. 61. IA Nos.2122/2007, 2906/2008 and 11879/2008 stand disposed of in the above terms. 62. An extra copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and to the counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 4 under the signature of the Court Master."

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection if this Court passes the order nullifying the sale transaction entered into between the respondent and Mrs. Meera Mittal.

10. The respondent has admitted that she is in possession and sale deed is without any consideration. It establishes that the respondent has entered into transaction on ill advice.

11. Admittedly, the directions contained in the order dated 24.07.1984 have been violated. However, keeping in view the status of the respondent, being an issueless widow living singly, unconditional apology tendered by her is accepted.

12. Accordingly, this Court declares that the sale deed dated 31.08.1992 executed in violation of the order dated 24.07.1984 has no consequence and is hereby set aside being null and void.

13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 05, 2015 sb/jg