Back
2012 (4) SCC 307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
KANWAR SINGH SAINI - Appellant
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1798 of 2009
Decided on : 23-09-2011.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 39 Rule 2A read with Order 21 Rule 32–In case there is grievance of non-compliance of terms of decree passed in civil suit, remedy available to aggrieved person is to approach execution Court under Order 21, Rule 32 ref=act:10444>CPC–Application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC is not maintainable once suit stood decreed–Law does not permit to skip remedies available under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC and resort to contempt proceedings. (Para 10)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971–Section 12–Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 39 Rule 2A read with Order 21 Rule 32–When matter relates to infringement of decree of decretal order embodies rights, as between parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character–Violation of permanent injunction can beset right in executing proceedings and not contempt proceedings–Provisions of Order 39, Rule 2A href=act:10444>CPC would not include case of violation or breach of permanent injunction granted at the time of passing of decree. (Para 10)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Section 9–Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with consent of parties nor by a superior Court–If Court passes order/decree having no jurisdiction over matter, it would amount to nullity as matter goes to roots of cause–Acquiescence of a party equally should not be permitted to defeat legislative animation. (Para 13)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971–Section 12–Contempt proceedings–Alleged contemnor is entitled to protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in Criminal Jurisprudence, including benefit of doubt–There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within ambit of said provision–Case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. (Para 25)
AIR 1969 SC 189; AIR 1959 SC 102; AIR 1954 SC 10; AIR 1952 SC 149; (2004) 5 SCC 26; (2007) 15 SCC 218; AIR 2009 SC 2214; (1994) 6 SCC 332; AIR 2004 SC 942; AIR 2006 SC 1883; (2008) 10 SCC 186; (2008) 10 SCC 795; 109 ER 1001; 1897; AC 615; AIR 1975 SC 2238; (1990) 1 SCC 193; AIR 1951 SC 230; AIR 1978 SC 22; AIR 1981 SC 537; AIR 1986 AII. 132; AIR 1988 SC 1531; AIR 1992 SC 96; (1995) 5 SCC 159; AIR 1996 SC 1373; AIR 1996 SC 2664;(1996) 7 SCC 711; AIR 1999 SC 2213; AIR 2000 SC 2484–Relied.
This Supreme Court case involves Kanwar Singh Saini (appellant) appealing his conviction for criminal contempt by the Delhi High Court.[1000513220001] (!) The dispute arose from a 2002 sale deed executed by the appellant in favor of Mohd. Yusuf for property in Village Khirki, New Delhi.[1000513220028] (!) Yusuf filed Suit No. 106/2003 for permanent injunction alleging attempted dispossession. (!) The appellant filed a written statement admitting the sale but claiming unpaid consideration, and gave an oral undertaking in court on 29.4.2003 that he had not threatened and would not dispossess Yusuf. (!) (!) (!) (!) Yusuf's counsel accepted this, and the suit was disposed of on 12.5.2003, binding parties to their statements, effectively turning the undertaking into a decree. (!) (!) (!) [1000513220007]
Later, Yusuf alleged breach, filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with Contempt of Courts Act sections against the appellant and family, claiming they broke locks and took possession on 4.8.2003. (!) (!) The trial court found prima facie contempt due to inconsistent pleas (appellant now denying Yusuf's possession) and referred the matter to the High Court on 16.2.2004. (!) (!) (!) The High Court treated it as criminal contempt, issued notice, convicted the appellant on 20.7.2009 for violating the undertaking via inconsistent statements/false affidavit, and sentenced him to four months' simple imprisonment.[1000513220001] (!) [1000513220019]
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, discharged bail bonds, and clarified it does not affect other pending suits on the property.[1000513220026]
No maintainability of Order XXXIX Rule 2A post-decree: This provision applies only to breaches of interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 during suit pendency; once decreed, any interim order/undertaking merges into the final decree, making Order XXXIX Rule 2A inapplicable.[1000513220008][1000513220009][1000513220010][1000513220015] The remedy for non-compliance with a decree (e.g., permanent injunction via undertaking) is execution under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC (attachment/detention), not contempt or Order XXXIX Rule 2A, as CPC provides specific enforcement modes that cannot be bypassed.[1000513220008][1000513220009][1000513220011][1000513220015]
Civil vs. Criminal Contempt Distinction: Breach of an undertaking/decree embodying private party rights is civil contempt (Section 2(b) Contempt Act), enforceable via execution for the benefited party's remedy, not criminal contempt (Section 2(c)) which upholds court dignity/public justice and requires intentional obstruction. (!) [1000513220013][1000513220016] Criminal contempt needs clear proof beyond surmises, with quasi-criminal safeguards/benefit of doubt; mere disobedience for private gain does not suffice.[1000513220016][1000513220024][1000513220025]
Procedural Irregularities: The suit was hastily disposed without proper "first hearing" (post-issues framing per Order X Rule 1, Order XIV Rule 1(5), Order XV Rule 1 CPC), undermining validity.[1000513220005][1000513220006] (!) - (!) [1000513220020] Reference to High Court unwarranted as no prima facie criminal contempt; inconsistent pleas alone (absent wilful public injury) do not justify criminal proceedings.[1000513220017][1000513220020][1000513220021]
Jurisdictional Limits: Courts lack jurisdiction to use contempt for decree execution; statutory remedies (e.g., Order XXI Rule 32) must be exhausted first, as contempt is summary/not alternative to circumlocutory processes.[1000513220009][1000513220010][1000513220012] Violation must be wilful post-proof of disobedience.[1000513220018]
The case emphasizes procedural adherence, protecting liberty from casual contempt use, prioritizing CPC execution for civil disputes, and reserving criminal contempt for grave threats to justice administration. (!) [1000513220020][1000513220023][1000513220024]
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-`Liberty' -the most cherished fundamental right, a basic human right, a "transcendental", inalienable, and `primordial' right, should not be put in peril without following the procedure prescribed by law and in a casual and cavalier manner. Instant case is an example where all proceedings in the suit as well as under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter called as `Act 1971'), have been taken without adverting to the procedure known in law.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Act 1971 against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.9 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing contempt of court by violating the undertaking given by him to the Court at the time of disposal of the suit and awarded him simple imprisonment for four months.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. The appellant executed a sale deed in favour of one Mohd. Yusuf on 5.9.2002 in respect of the premises bearing No. 148, village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-and got the said deed registered.
B. Mohd. Yusuf filed suit No. 106/2003 in the Civil Court, Delhi, on 26.4.2003 for permanent injunction alleging that the appellant tried to dispossess him on 24.4.2003 from the said suit premises. His application for interim relief was rejected. The Civil Court issued summons and notice to the appellant/defendant.
C. In response to the said summons and notice, the appellant filed a written statement on 29.4.2003 admitting the execution of sale deed in respect of the suit premises for a sum of Rs.2.10 lacs and handing over its possession to the plaintiff but denied the allegation that he had made any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. However, the appellant raised the grievance that the entire consideration of sale has not been paid to him as a sum of Rs.25,000/-still remained outstanding.
D. The Civil Court while taking his written statement on record also recorded the statement of the appellant/defendant in person that he had neither threatened to dispossess nor he would dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff's counsel accepted the statements made by the appellant/defendant in the court and the case was adjourned for 12.5.2003. On 12.5.2003, plaintiff asked the court to dispose of the suit in view of the statement made by the appellant/defendant. The court disposed of the suit directing the appellant/defendant not to breach the undertaking given by him.
E. Appellant's son filed a suit on 11.8.2003 for partition in respect of two plot Nos. i.e. 147A and 148 claiming that he had a share in the said properties.
F. Mohd. Yusuf-plaintiff in the Suit No. 106/2003 filed an application before the High Court under the provisions of Act 1971 alleging the violation of the undertaking given by the appellant to the civil court. The application came up for hearing on 11.9.2003 but none appeared to press the same. The High Court disposed of the application vide order dated 11.3.2003 giving liberty to the said applicant to approach the civil court. The said order was passed without issuing notice to the appellant or anyone else.
G. Mohd. Yusuf filed an application dated 15.9.2003 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called `CPC') read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act 1971 against the appellant, his wife and two sons alleging that when he visited the suit premises on 4.8.2003, he found that the locks of the main door had been broken by them. The appellant filed reply to the said application on 22.10.2003 alleging that the execution of the sale deed dated 5.9.2002 and his written statement and the statement made before the court on 29.4.2003 had been obtained by fraud.
H. While hearing the said application, the Court vide order dated 16.2.2004 recorded that as the appellant had taken inconsistent pleas to his wri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
