Point of Law: Wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction – In view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1971, the provisions of the Act of 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of Courts. It was open for the respondent to have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court

JUDGMENT :

A.S.Chandurkar, J.

Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants who have been held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 10.04.2006 and 08.02.2008 in First Appeal No.45/2006 have challenged the judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed in Contempt Petition No.165/2013, in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the said Act’). While the appellant nos. 1, 4, 7 to 9 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, the appellant nos.3, 5 and 6 have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each within ten days, in default with further simple imprisonment for a period of one week.

2. The facts giving rise to the contempt proceedings are that one Mohammad Samad had filed R.C.S.No.2259/1992 which was re-numbered as S.C.S.No.139/1999 seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.1 on 03.09.1991 was not binding on him. This suit was decreed on 17.12.2005. The respondent no.1 herein challenged this judgment by filing First Appeal No.45/2006 in this Court. On 10.04.2006 the Court accepted the statement made on behalf of the original plaintiff that he would not alienate the suit property or create third party interest therein during pendency of the appeal. On 08.02.2008 the legal representatives of Mohammad Samad were restrained from creating third party rights in the suit property. However in breach of these orders, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff on 28.04.2008 alienated the suit property by executing a sale deed. On getting knowledge of the fact that the suit property had been alienated, the respondent no.1 filed Contempt Petition No.165/2013. After considering the defences raised by the alleged legal representatives of the original plaintiff who had come on record of the first appeal and who had alienated the suit property, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the appellants were guilty of having committed contempt on account of wilful disobedience of the orders passed in the first appeal. The contemnors who were ladies were sentenced to pay fine while the other contemnors were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days along with fine of Rs.2000/- each. It is this judgment that is challenged in this contempt appeal.

3. Shri U.P.Dable, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in recording a finding that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction dated 10.04.2006 by executing the sale deed of the suit property on 28.04.2008. According to him, after the order dated 10.04.2006 was passed, the respondent in First Appeal No.45/2006 Mohd. Samad expired on 26.08.2006 and thereafter the appellants were substituted as legal heirs of the said deceased on 28.04.2007. Prior to such impleadment the appellants had executed a document of power of attorney in favour of the respondent no.14 in the contempt petition. According to him, the appellants had raised a defence before the learned Single Judge that the appellants were not aware of the undertaking given by Mohd. Samad that third party rights in the suit property would not be created. The learned counsel representing the appellants had not informed them that such an undertaking had been given by the original respondent nor were they informed of the order dated 08.02.2008 and therefore it could not be said that they had wilfully disobeyed and breached the undertaking by executing the sale deed dated 28.04.2008. He also submitted that the contempt proceedings were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act of 1971.

The sale deed was alleged to have been executed on 28.04.2008 while the contempt petition was filed on 11.07.2013 which was beyond the period of one year from the alleged contempt. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodi