Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ). Vide my order dt. l2. 12. 95, I have sentenced contemnors 1 to 3 to pay fine of Rs. 2000. 00 , failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I have been told that fine has been paid by the contemnors. On that date Ms. Anju Lal appeared for respondent no. 6 and counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply to the application filed by respondent no. 6, which is an application u/s 151 read with Order VII, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ). Mr. G. N. Aggarwal, now appearing for respondent no. 6 has contended that no notice of contempt was issued to respondent no. 6 as per order of this Court dt. l8. 9. 92 and therefore, respondent no. 6 is not a party in the contempt proceedings. He has also contended that no undertaking of any nature whatsoever, was given by raspondent no. 6 regarding tenanted premises. In support of his arguments, Mr. Aggarwal has relied up AIR 1979, SC 1528 to contend that respondent no. 6 is not bound by the undertaking, if any, given by her husband or sons. Mr. Aggarwal has further contended that as a matter of fact on 23. 7. 92, Ahmed Sayeed, landlord of the property in question ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document