Smt. Manjeet Kaur vs Jaspinder Singh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12296 Raj

(1 of 5) [CCP-27/2016]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 27/2016

Smt. Manjeet Kaur W/o Shri Sewa Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, R/o 59 GB, Tehsil - Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jaspinder Singh S/o Shri Jagnandan Singh, R/o 9-G Chhoti, Tehsil & District Sriganganagar.

2. Jagnandan Singh S/o Shri Gajan Singh, R/o 9-G Chhoti, Tehsil & District Sriganganagar.

3. Shri Vikas Vishnoi, Station House Officer, Police Station, Ramsinghpur, District Sriganganagar.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
                                   Mr. Deepender Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)            :     Ms. Nidhi Singhvi for Mr. Sanjeet
                                   Purohit
                                   Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

06/08/2021

1. The petitioner herein has preferred the present contempt

petition praying that the respondents be punished under Section

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for flouting the order

dated 28.10.2015, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal

No.324/2015.

2. It may be noticed that the plaintiff Gajan Singh had filed a

suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated

07.02.1991 and 28.05.1991, executed in his favour, which was

dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 03.09.2015.

(2 of 5) [CCP-27/2016]

3. An appeal came to be filed by the LRs of said Gajan Singh

(respondents No.1 and 2 herein), which was admitted in the

presence of both the parties and following interim order came to

be passed on 28.10.2015:-

"Meanwhile status quo of the possession of the suit

property, as it exists today, shall be maintained by all the parties."

4. Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that on the date of passing of the interim order by this

Court, petitioner was in possession and has been forcibly ejected

by the respondents.

5. Mr. Kharlia (in the presence of his client - who was defendant

in the suit) makes an assertion that the petitioner came into

possession on 16.09.2015, after the judgment and decree dated

03.09.2015 was passed by the trial Court dismissing plaintiffs'

suit.

6. In a bid to establish petitioner's possession, learned counsel

relies upon Annex.Rej/6 (page 126) - a report dated 24.10.2015

of the Patwari and contends that the petitioner had got done the

demarcation (Nishandehi) of the disputed land. He also relies

upon water slips dated 16.09.2015 and 22.11.2016 (page 117 and

116 respectively) and submits that these water slips containing

petitioner's name establish petitioner's possession over the subject

land.

7. Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that during the trial, a Commissioner was appointed by

the trial Court, who had given a categorical finding about her

clients' (plaintiffs') possession over the land. She further submits

(3 of 5) [CCP-27/2016]

that during the pendency of present contempt petition a judicial

enquiry was ordered by this Court on 16.08.2017, in furtherance

whereof the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar has

submitted his report clearly indicating that on 28.10.2015, the

respondents were in possession. While maintaining that her

clients had an uninterrupted possession since 1991, she contends

that the petitioner has tried to create paper-evidence to show her

possession. She further adds that even the documentary evidence

placed by the petitioner does not prove petitioner's possession.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. According to petitioner's own case, she has come into

possession only after passing of the judgment and decree dated

03.09.2015. It is submitted by Mr. Kharlia that after coming into

possession the water slips were got issued, whereas in the

contempt petition, the petitioner has asserted that as she had the

possession the land was recorded in her name on 09.09.2016.

10. Petitioner has made the finding recorded in para No.34 of the

judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015 as a basis to contend that

she was in possession during trial. Such assertion is found

incorrect in the face of petitioner's own version that she came into

possession on 16.09.2015 (after the judgment and decree was

passed on 03.09.2015).

11. As such, the petitioner has taken possession of the land after

the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015, which shows that she

did not have possession of the land, when the trial Court had

passed the judgment on 03.09.2015.

12. As the title of the land was with the petitioner, plaintiffs' suit

was dismissed; still in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs

(contemnors), a Coordinate Bench of this Court ordered to

(4 of 5) [CCP-27/2016]

maintain status quo, which clearly suggests that on the date of

decree, present petitioner (defendant) did not have possession.

13. Concededly the petitioner has come into possession (on

16.09.2015) after the dismissal of plaintiffs' suit. Neither in the

contempt petition nor during the course of arguments it has been

informed as to how the petitioner has procured possession.

14. This being the position, the interim order, which was passed

by this Court on 28.10.2015 for maintaining the status quo of the

suit property, cannot be permitted to be used by a person, who

claims to have taken possession after the suit was decreed.

15. Mr. Kharlia also argued that the interim order was passed on

28.10.2015 clearly stipulating therein that the status quo, as it

exists today, shall be maintained. According to him, effect of the

interim order passed by this Court is that, whosoever was in

possession on 28.10.2015 should remain in possession.

16. The argument of Mr. Kharlia is both legally and factually

untenable in face of the finding of judicial enquiry. That apart, the

petitioner was admittedly not in possession on the date of decree

and she has not pleaded or showed as to how she came into

possession on 16.09.2015. Ignoring such disputed factual aspects

if the contempt proceedings are proceeded with, the litigants

would be encouraged to change position of the possession of the

disputed properties before the rival party can approach the higher

forum and get an injunction.

17. In the opinion of this Court such endevour on the part of a

party, who was admittedly neither in possession of the disputed

property on the date of dismissal of suit nor has been found to be

in possession even on the date of interim order (28.10.2015) as is

(5 of 5) [CCP-27/2016]

evident from perusal of report of the judicial enquiry, cannot

maintain the present contempt petition.

18. Having regard to aforesaid and considering that in a judicial

enquiry got conducted by this Court vide its order dated

16.08.2017, the respondents - contemnors have been found in

possession on the date of the interim order i.e. 28.10.2015 and

that a coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the same, has

dispensed with personal appearance of respondent No.3, this

Court does not deem it appropriate to continue these proceedings

for contempt.

19. In the contempt proceedings, the disputed fact as to who,

out of the petitioner and respondents, was in possession, cannot

rather should not be determined. More particularly, when both the

parties have filed cross FIRs levelling allegations of forcibly taking

possession. Going into this question and then, recording any

finding in this regard may prejudicially affect the trial/result of the

cases pending between the parties (FIR No.250/2015; 54/2016;

55/2016; and other civil/criminal proceedings including FIR

No.58/2015).

20. The notices of contempt are hereby discharged.

21. The contempt petition is thus, dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 3-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)