When an order of the Court is clear and unambiguous, proceedings for contempt should be entertained. In proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, the Court is only required to see whether there is disobedience of the order passed by the Court, and it is not permissible to examine the correctness of the earlier decision.

1. By virtue of this order, I propose to dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 151 CPC preferred by the Plaintiffs (applicants) for initiating action of contempt against Defendant No. 8, her sons Defendants No. 4 to 7 and Defendant No. 14, Caravan Commercial Company Ltd. for violating the order dated 24.11.2009.

2. A suit for partition in respect of property bearing no. 42-44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi was preferred by the minor Plaintiffs, through their next friend Mrs. Asha Aggarwal. Along with the suit, an application I.A. No. 4108/ 1997 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed by the Plaintiffs for restraining the Defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering or disturbing the status quo of the property as it was existing on the date of filing of the suit and the application. By an order dated 07.05.1997, the parties (to the suit) were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property bearing no. 42-44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi.

3. I.A. No. 4696/ 2005 was preferred by Defendant No. 12 for modification of the order dated 07.05.1997. The order was modified by the Court by an order dated 16.09.2005. Since this order will be relevant for reference a little later, the same is extracted hereunder:

“The counsel for the Plaintiffs states that his clients will have no objection in case the Defendant No. 12 exercises his rights and deals with his undivided share without parting with the possession of any portion of the property.

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiffs, the order dated 07.05.1997 is modified to the extent that the status quo will be maintained in respect of possession of the parties to property no. 42-44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. However, Defendant No. 12 shall be entitled to exercise his rights and deal with his undivided share in the property.”

4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs (applicants) that thereafter I.A. No. 3084/ 2006 was filed by Defendants No. 9 to 11 and 13 for vacation of the status quo order dated 07.05.1997. The said application was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 22.08.2007. Thereafter, another application I.A. No. 12948/ 2008 was preferred by Defendant No. 8 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for discharging the status quo order dated 07.05.1997. The application came to be disposed of by an order dated 24.11.2009, whereby Defendant No. 8 was also permitted to deal with her undivided 1/3rd share in the property. It is this order which is alleged to have been violated by Defendant No.8, her sons Defendants No. 4 to 7 and Defendant No.14, Caravan Commercial Company Ltd. Therefore, it will be apposite to extract the order dated 24.11.2009 hereunder for ready reference:

“This application has been made under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on behalf of Defendant No. 8 with a prayer that the court should modify the status quo order dated 7th May, 1997 which was earlier modified on 16th September, 2005.

It is submitted by learned counsel for Defendant No.8 that Defendant No.8 was entitled to undivided 1/3rd share in the property. This court vide order dated 16th September, 2005 had given liberty to Defendant No. 12, who was similarly placed that Defendant No.12 shall be entitled to exercise his rights and deal with his undivided share in his property. He states that Defendant No. 8 is also entitled for the same liberty.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that as far as Defendant No. 8 is concerned, her 1/3rd share in the property is not disputed and counsel for the plaintiffs has no objection in case the similar order as in respect of Defendant No.12 has been passed is also passed in favour of Defendant No.8.

In view of this submission, the application for modifying the status quo order dated 16th September, 2005 is allowed and it is observed that Defendant No. 8 shall be entitled to exercise her rights and deal with her undivided 1/3rd share in the property.