Rajender Kumar Aggarwal vs Kamlesh
2015 Latest Caselaw 8435 Del

                                                                            #31
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CONT.CAS(C) 628/2015

       RAJENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
                   Through Dr. V.P. Singh, Advocate.
                           Petitioner in person.

                         versus

       KAMLESH                          ..... Respondent
                         Through        Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Advocate


%                                 Date of Decision   : 6th November, 2015

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. The petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the consent order dated 24th February, 2014 passed in RSA 124/2013 whereby the respondent had undertaken to vacate the suit premises being third floor of the property bearing No. 562/37, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 on or before 30th June, 2015. The operative portion of the order dated 24 th February, 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. After arguments, the appeal and application are disposed of with the consent order that appellant will vacate the suit premises being the third floor of the property bearing No.562/37, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035 on or

before 30.6.2015. The appellant till the end of February, 2014 will pay the mesne profits as calculated by the Courts below and from 1.3.2014 till 30.6.2015 or an earlier date of vacation will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as charges of use and occupation. Appellant will also clear all charges towards electricity and water with respect to the suit premises. It is further stated that her counsel did not contact the petitioner for asking her to file an undertaking and she was not even informed of the order dated 24th February, 2014."

2. Just around the time the respondent was to hand over physical vacant possession of the suit premises, she filed a review petition stating that the undertaking given by her counsel before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24th February, 2014 was without any instruction and even the affidavit- cum-undertaking filed on her behalf did not bear her signature. It was also stated that she was not even informed of the order dated 24th February, 2014.

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the review petition on 29th June, 2015 along with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The Coordinate Bench even gave a finding that the respondent is a dishonest litigant who had taken a convenient stand that her signatures were forged and fabricated. The relevant portion of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"5. Some of the litigants in this country intend to abuse the process of the law. Not only they abuse the process of the law, but they put the credibility of the judicial process to question inasmuch as, judicial process has two parties, the other being the party in whose favour the suit is denied. It is high time that a very strong and stern message should be sent to dishonest litigants such as the appellant. I am therefore dismissing the review petition with costs as per the observations made hereinafter.

6. Firstly, I do not find any valid reason for the appellant to contend that her signatures on the undertaking dated 12.3.2014 are forged and fabricated by the earlier Advocate, inasmuch as, the Advocate through whom the undertaking is filed is the same Advocate who had originally filed the Regular Second Appeal namely Sh. R.P.Sharma, Advocate. Three Advocates have filed the appeal on behalf of the appellant namely Smt. Anjali Nehra, Sh. K.C.Mittal and Sh. R.P.Sharma, Advocates. The second appeal is signed by Sh. R.P.Sharma and the same Sh. R.P.Sharma has also signed the index alongwith which the undertaking was filed in this Court on 12.3.2014, and which was the undertaking in terms of the order dated 24.2.2014 to vacate the suit premises by 30.6.2015. Appellant thus is merely taking up a convenient stand of her signatures being forged and fabricated and this becomes clear from the fact that the appellant is waking up just in and around the period when the time granted to her to vacate the suit premises is coming to an end on 30.6.2015.

7. I may note that the appellant/review petitioner/tenant has deliberately not given any details as regards why she was silent from February, 2014 till the filing of this review petition on 18.6.2015 and the details of allegedly of the appellant/review petitioner/tenant being told by the Advocate only in May, 2015. Obviously, the appellant/review petitioner, who is the tenant and against whom concurrent decrees had been passed, and whose case was to be decided by a judgment on merits after arguments on 24.2.2014, however instead of a judgment, the appellant/review petitioner/tenant finding no strength in her second appeal which was required to show a substantial question of law, chose through counsel to take time to vacate the suit premises.

8. Even for the sake of arguments if we take that the signatures of the appellant/review petitioner/tenant are not appearing on the undertaking dated 12.3.2014, that cannot disturb the finality of the order dated 24.2.2014 because admittedly the counsel who appeared before this Court on 24.2.2014 and

argued the matter is /was admittedly the counsel of the appellant/review petitioner/tenant in the Regular Second Appeal and who was appearing since the first date ie 9.7.2013 alongwith the other Advocate Sh. R.P.Sharma. At best non- filing of the undertaking would only mean that the appellant/review petitioner/tenant could have been evicted even prior to 30.6.2015 but assuming that undertaking is not filed because allegedly it does not contain the signatures of the appellant/review petitioner/tenant cannot mean that the finality of the order dated 24.2.2014 will be taken away, because as already stated above, the appellant was duly represented by her regular advocate who in fact argued the second appeal on 24.2.2014 and in the interest of justice the appellant, after arguments, took time of more than one year and four months to vacate the suit premises.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

11. In the facts of the present case, though I was inclined to impose costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- for dismissing the review petition, however, considering the condition of the appellant/ review petitioner/tenant, this review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- and which costs shall be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee within six weeks from today."

4. Mr. P.K. Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent again reiterates that undertaking given by respondent's counsel before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24th February, 2014 was without any instruction and even the affidavit-cum-undertaking filed on her behalf did not bear her signature.

5. But as the aforesaid defences have been rejected by a Coordinate Bench, this Court cannot even examine the same.

6. At this stage, Mr. Bajaj prays that an adjournment on the ground that an SLP has been filed by the respondent against the orders dated 24 th February, 2014 and 29th June, 2015. However, on 14th October, 2015 and 5th

November, 2015 the matter was adjourned on the said ground.

7. Since the respondent has not been able to get her SLP listed for more than five months, this Court is of the view that it has no other option but to reject the said plea for adjournment.

8. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the respondent has committed a wilful and deliberate breach of her undertaking. The subsequent conduct of the respondent leaves no doubt that she tried to obstruct the course of justice and tried to bring the institution of judiciary into disrepute.

9. In fact, yesterday when this Court had dictated a substantial portion of the judgment and was about to sentence the respondent, counsel for the respondent had personally given an assurance that the respondent would vacate the premises in question by today 4.00 p.m.

10. However, today, counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has been taken unwell and admitted in a hospital. Though proof of admission in the hospital has been filed, yet the medical report does not suggest that she is suffering from any life threatening disease.

11. The petitioner, who is personally present in Court, states that he had seen the respondent today at 12.00 noon and she was hail and hearty. He also states that respondent has till date not vacated the premises.

12. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent interferes with the due course of justice and she is held guilty of contempt of court. It is necessary to do so to uphold the majesty of law and dignity of courts as well as sanctity of court proceedings.

13. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even in contempt proceedings eviction of tenants can be ordered, this Court directs the local

SHO, Police Station Keshav Puram to forcibly evict the respondent by tomorrow 4.00 p.m., if required and hand over physical vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner. The belonging of the respondents, if any, in the suit premises shall be kept in the police station for a period of one week and if she does not collect the same, she will have to pay mesne profits and user charges @ Rs. 1000/- per day to the police. If the respondent still does not collect her belongings within a period of two weeks thereafter, the police shall be entitled to auction the same and hand over the sale proceeds to her.

14. Since the respondent is stated to be unwell, this Court defers her sentencing to the next date of hearing.

15. List on 17th November, 2015. The respondent is directed to be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.

Order dasti under signature of Court Master.

MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 06, 2015 rn/NG