Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Manohar Lal vs Mahendra Kumar Saraswat ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:8614]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt Petition No. 763/2024
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10795/2022
LRs Of Manohar Lal-
1/1. Narendra @ Nandu S/o Late Shri Manoharlal Ji, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Plot No. 7, Deep Bhawan, Behind
Janta Sweet Home, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur.
1/2. Sanjeev S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Ji, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Plot No. 7, Deep Bhawan, Behind Janta Sweet
Home, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Mahendra Kumar Saraswat S/o Shri Shambu Dutt Ji, Aged About
65 Years, R/o Plot No. 34, Gali No. 5, Raj Hospital Wali Gali,
Shyam Nagar, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur.
Second Address- C/o Living In Style, Shop No. 7C, Deep
Bhawan, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.K. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
Mahendra Kumar Saraswat,
Respondent - Contemnor present in
person.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/02/2025
1. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saraswat, the respondent-contemnor is
present in the Court.
2. By way of the present contempt petition, the petitioners
have alleged that the contemnor has willfully disobeyed not only
the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by this Court but also the
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (2 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
undertaking, which he had furnished alongwith affidavit dated
04.04.2023 filed in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 370/2022.
3. The facts to be noted are handful. The respondent -
contemnor had preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 10795/2022, challenging the judgment dated
03.02.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') so also the judgment and decree
dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal,
Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'). The
writ petition so filed was dismissed on merits by order dated
22.08.2022 and the order dated 03.02.2018 passed by the
Tribunal and the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Appellate
Tribunal were affirmed, however, with following observation:-
"In view of the submissions made above, the present
writ petition is dismissed. The judgment dated
03.02.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur
(Annexure-7) as well as the judgment and decree
dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Appellate
Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (Annexure-15) are affirmed
and it is directed that the petitioner shall handover
the vacant peaceful possession of the rented
premises to the respondents on or before 31st
December, 2023. The petitioner will also pay the rent
due so far in accordance with the judgments passed
by the courts below within a period of three months
from today and will continue to pay the rent till the
vacant possession of the shop is handed over to the
respondents."
4. Meanwhile, the petitioners-landlord had launched execution
but the same were kept in abeyance, as the respondent-
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (3 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
contemnor was allowed to hand over the possession of the shop in
question to the petitioners by 31.12.2023.
5. It is to be noted that the respondent-contemnor was under
the orders of the Court to pay mesne profit and due rent within a
period of three months from the date of the order.
6. The respondent-contemnor, however, neither vacated the
subject property nor did he pay the due amount of arrears of rent
and chose to move an application being S.B. Writ Misc. Application
No. 370/2022 seeking modification of the order dated 22.08.2022
for extension of time to pay the outstanding amount of rent.
7. During the pendency of above application, the respondent
filed an undertaking cum affidavit dated 04.04.2023 and
undertook that outstanding amount will be paid in monthly
installments of Rs.1,25,000/-.
8. It is asserted by Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioners
that out of eight installments, six installments were paid and for
the remaining amount, the respondent-contemnor had tendered
two cheques of Rs.1,25,000/- each, which too got dishonored.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
respondent-contemnor has taken the order of the Court very
lightly and has even defied his own undertaking, for which the
petitioners had to pursue the execution proceedings. He submitted
that vacant possession of the subject property from the
contemnor could be taken on 12.02.2024.
10. Learned counsel prayed that the respondent-contemnor be
punished for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court
and for flouting the undertaking.
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (4 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
11. Mr. Tayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
contemnor submitted that the respondent is an old aged person of
69 years and is indisposed, therefore, he be excused. He
submitted that the respondent-contemnor is ready and willing to
offer Rs.1,25,000/- today itself.
12. It is to be noted that the bailable warrant was issued against
the respondent-contemnor and the same was served on
12.12.2024. On 17.12.2024, Mr. Tayal appeared on behalf of the
contemnor and prayed for some time and thus, the matter was
adjourned to 11.02.2025. On 11.02.2025 (yesterday), learned
counsel offered a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners and
prayed for some time. But looking to the avoiding attitude of the
contemnor and finding it to be a case of gross contempt, the case
was ordered to be listed on 12.02.2025.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. There is no gainsaying the fact that the writ petition, which
the respondent-contemnor had filed was dismissed and he was
required to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the
subject property on or before 31.12.2023 to the petitioners. He
was also required to clear the arrears of rent within a period of
three months from the date of the order. Hence, it was incumbent
upon the respondent-contemnor to hand over the vacant
possession by 31.12.2023 and clear the arrears of rent upto
22.11.2022, which he has not done.
15. The court ordinarily takes lenient view in case of some delay
in compliance of the orders passed by this court, unless the same
on its face depicts deliberate disavowal and willful non compliance.
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (5 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
16. It is a matter of grave concern that the indulgence, which
the co-ordinate Bench had granted to the respondent-contemnor
while dismissing his writ petition on merits, has been misused and
instead of handing over the possession of the subject property, he
continued to retain the same and was ultimately evicted forcefully.
It is all the more shocking that the arrears of rent have also not
been paid though he was supposed to clear the same by
22.11.2022.
17. The respondent-contemnor has just washed his hands off by
moving an application before this Court seeking extension of time.
Curiously, same also remained unattended and finally came to be
rejected by this Court on 03.01.2024.
18. This Court is not much surprised by the fact that the order
has not been complied with, it is shocked to see that no reply to
the contempt petition, much less a formal apology has been
furnished, though the contemnor was served on 11.12.2024.
19. The respondent - contemnor had no explanation worth the
name to offer - he was not even in a position to show his bona-
fides by bringing on record any effort that he has so far taken to
comply with the order.
20. It is all the more agonizing that the present contemnor
sought additional time for complying with the order by filing an
application on 04.04.2023 under the caption "Additional Affidavit
cum Undertaking". And, after filing of such application, he just
went in oblivion. No effort has been made by him to clear the dues
after his cheques were dishonored until today.
21. The conduct on the part of the respondent-contemnor is
highly contemptuous and unvirtuous. It is reflective of his
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (6 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
approach - give least regard to the orders passed by the
Constitutional Courts. The contemnor's approach towards the
court proceedings and the orders passed by this Court reflects his
callous disregard and remissness for the orders passed by this
Court and the undertaking given by him. Such person cannot be
allowed to get away with his breach by offering a part of the due
amount, when even cheques issued by him have bounced.
22. This Court is therefore, constrained to hold that the
contemnor - Mahendra Kumar Saraswat is guilty of civil contempt,
as defined under the provisions of section 3 read with section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Because, not only he has
failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court but also
because he has breached his own undertaking which he had given
while seeking extension of time on 04.04.2023. He is also liable
for penal action for perjury as well, for filing false affidavit.
23. The frustration of not being able to get the fruit of the
successful litigation, which the petitioners have faced and the
majesty of the Court - which the contemnor has diluted rather
dented by not paying any heed for more than two years, cannot
be recompensed by him by paying any amount of fine.
24. In absence of any apology - formal or informal, this Court is
left with no option but to order civil imprisonment, while recording
a finding of deliberate and contumacious disobedience of court's
order.
ORDER ON PUNISHMENT:
25. Issue notice.
26. The respondent-contemnor, who is present in person accepts
notice.
[2025:RJ-JD:8614] (7 of 7) [WCP-763/2024]
27. Heard on sentence.
28. The facts of the case warrants that the contemnor be dealt
with by heavy hands but having regard to the age of the
respondent-contemnor (69 years), this Court adopts a lenient
view and awards simple imprisonment of seven days to the
respondent-contemnor.
29. The order instant shall, however, remain in abeyance upto
28.02.2025, whereafter the contemnor - Mahendra Kumar
Saraswat S/o Shri Shambu Dutt, R/o Plot No. 34, Gali No.5, Raj
Hospital Wali Gali, Shyam Nagar, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur shall be
taken to civil jail.
30. A copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jodhpur so as to ensure that the contemnor is sent behind the
bars on 01.03.2025 for a period of seven days, in case the order
instant is not interfered with or otherwise modified.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
244-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
