Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 700
High Court Of Delhi
NARAIN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
MAHINDER SINGH - Respondent
Contempt Civil Petition 98 of 1991
Decided On : 12/18/1991
NANDINI SAHNI, Narinder Sethi, SANJAY PODDAR
Wilful disobedience of a court order or breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. However, the court must adjudicate whether there is any disobedience calling for action under Section 11 of the Act. If no case is made out for proceeding against the alleged contemnor, the petition is to be dismissed.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ORDER 39 RULES 1-2 CPC - SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents, restraining them from interfering with his possession of a piece of land. An ex parte injunction was granted, but later vacated by the Addl. District Judge. Petitioner filed an appeal and obtained a stay order. Despite the stay order, respondents allegedly tried to dispossess the petitioner, leading to a contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's remedy for the alleged violation of the injunction order lay under Order 39 Rule 2a CPC before the same court that passed the order. The court also found that the respondents did not violate the order passed by this court restraining the petitioner from interfering with their possession of the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents violated the injunction order passed by the Addl. District Judge under Order 39 Rules 1-2 CPC? 2. Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by trying to dispossess the petitioner after obtaining a stay order from this court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's remedy for the alleged violation of the injunction order lay under Order 39 Rule 2a CPC before the same court that passed the order. The court relied on the legal proposition that if there is any violation of an injunction order passed by a Subordinate Court under Order 39 Rules 1-2 CPC, the remedy lies under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2a Civil Procedure Code before the same Court. 2. The court held that the respondents did not violate the order passed by this court restraining the petitioner from interfering with their possession of the land. The court found that the report of the local commissioner appointed by the court did not show or prove that the respondents had committed any violation of the order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that no case was made out for proceeding against the respondents under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
( 1 ) FACTS giving rise to this civil contempt petition are that Narain Singh, petitioner herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Addl. District Judge Delhi seeking injunction against the respondents Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh restraining them from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the piece of land measuring 2 bighas, 18 biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 situated in village Samaipur, Delhi. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Shri M. S. Rohilla, Addl. District Judge vide order dated 11. 6. 1990 granted ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the suit land, but on an application moved by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the Addl. District Judge, Mrs. Manju Goel, vide her detailed order dated 29. 6. 1990 vacated the stay order and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding, prima facie, that the petitioner is neither In possession nor has title over the suit land. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before this Court.
( 2 ) IN this contempt petition filed by the petitioner, it has been alleged that he purchased this land vide registered sale deed on 14. 5. 89 from Maman Singh, who delivered the possession of the land to him and his name has been duly recorded as in possession in Khasra Girdwari as well as in Khatauni. According to the petitioner despite the order dated 11. 6. 90 passed by Shri M. S. Robilla, Addl. District Judge, the respondents tried to dispossess him and on 26. 6. 90, the respondents along with large number of persons armed with deadly weapons came to the suit land and tried to dispossess the petitioner. Police was called and case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506, 323, 427 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondents and others. An application for contempt of Court was filed before the same Addl. District Judge and the petitioner also moved an application for appointment of a local Commissioner, but the Addl. District Judge vacated the stay order without consideration of the contention of the petitioner. In the appeal show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and it was ordered that the petitioner will not be dispossessed without due process of law. Despite this order dated 30. 6. 90, the respondents continued their attempt to forcibly dispossess the petitioner which led him to file an application for early hearing. On the application moved by the petitioner, a local Commissioner was appointed and that local Commissioner in his report did not find the respondents in possession of the suit land. According to the petitioner, the respondents have no regard for the orders of the Court and are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land and as such they are guilty of the contempt of Court.
( 3 ) THE respondents contested this petition and filed written reply. According to the respondents this contempt petition is counterblast to the contempt petition filed by the respondents being No. 80/91. There is no cause of action against the respondents. The petitioner obtained injunction order by playing fraud on the vacation Judge Shri M. S. Rohilla, A. O. J. by not disclosing true facts. By obtaining the ex-parte injunction order the petitioner tried to interfere in the possession of the respondent, but they could not succeed and filed this contempt petition. This plea of the petitioner was not accepted by the Addl. District Judge, who rejected the application holding that there has not been any violation of any order passed by the Court and no contempt is made out. It is only to pressurise the respondents that this contempt petition has been filed. Regarding the report of the local Commissioner, it is submitted that it is a self-seeking evidence and V. K. . Seth, Local Commissioner has been assisting Shri Ravinder Set
