Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Ram Kishan & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Shiv Kumar & Anr. – Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 619 of 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Neetu Gupta, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Shalini Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents with Respondent in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforcement of a Compromise Deed and the consequences of willful non-compliance, including the imposition of penalties and directions to ensure compliance.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance with Compromise Deed - CPC - [Contempt of Court] - [Non-Compliance with Compromise Deed] - [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners filed a petition due to the willful non-compliance by Respondent No.1 of the Deed of Compromise dated 10.09.2015. The Compromise Deed was filed before the Court and accepted by the Court. The Respondent No. 1 persisted with the stand that he does not want the subject property to be re-constructed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of civil contempt for willfully disobeying the consent order dated 17.09.2015 and the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed dated 10.09.2015, which were directed to bind the parties. The Court sentenced Respondent No. 1 to two (2) months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with further 15 days of simple imprisonment in case of default of payment of the fine.
Issues: The issues included the willful non-compliance with the Compromise Deed, the objections raised by Respondent No. 1, and the history of violating the orders of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Respondent No. 1 was guilty of civil contempt for willfully disobeying the consent order and the terms of the Compromise Deed. The Court also issued directions to ensure compliance with the Compromise Deed, including allowing the Petitioners to construct and complete the property and imposing penalties for non-compliance.
Final Decision: The Court sentenced Respondent No. 1 to two (2) months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with further 15 days of simple imprisonment in case of default of payment of the fine. The Court also issued directions to ensure compliance with the Compromise Deed and warned of further consequences in case of non-compliance.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
1. The Petitioners are brothers of Respondent No. 1 and the present petition has been filed in view of the willful non-compliance by the Respondent No.1 of the Deed of Compromise dated 10.09.2015 (`Compromise Deed'), which was filed before this Court along with an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') in TEST.CAS. No. 19 of 2013; and accepted by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2015. The Court in its order dated 17.09.2015 directed that the Petitioners herein and Respondent No. 1 shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the said Compromise Deed.
2. The Respondent No. 2, since deceased, was the wife of Respondent No. 1 and the pleadings primarily state that Respondent No. 2 during her lifetime obstructed the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed.
3. However, even after the death of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 has taken the express stand that he does not intend to comply with the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed.
4. The facts and legal proceedings which, led to the execution of the Compromise Deed are as under:
4.1. The Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 are the three (3) sons of late Sh. Khazan Dutt Sharma, who passed away on 11.02.2013. Upon his death the Petitioners herein instituted the TEST.CAS. No. 19 of 2013 before this Court for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to his registered Will dated 11.10.2012.
4.2. The subject matter of the registered Will dated 11.10.2012 was three (3) existing shops at the ground floor; the room above the said shops and the terrace on the first floor; and the terrace above the first floor, forming part of property bearing No. 11, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi (`subject property'), which was owned by the late Sh. Khazan Dutt Sharma.
4.3. The Shop situated at the extreme east side of the property and adjacent to the Gali was in possession of Respondent No.1, Shri Shiv Kumar (`Shop No. A'). The middle shop was in possession of Petitioner No.2, Shri Om Prakash (`Shop No. B'). The Shop at the western side of the subject property was in possession of Petitioner No. 1, Shri Ram Kishan (`Shop No. C').
4.4. The Respondent No. 1, four (4) daughters of late Sh. Khazan Dutt Sharma and legal heirs of a pre-deceased daughter were impleaded as respondents in the said TEST.CAS. No. 19 of 2013.
4.5. The `no objection' of the four (4) daughters to grant of probate was recorded with respect to the registered Will dated 11.10.2012. The legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughter did not enter appearance despite service. Respondent No. 1 alone filed objections to the grant of probate.
4.6. The dispute was, therefore, only between the three (3) sons of late Sh. Khazan Dutt Sharma, i.e., the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 herein.
4.7. In the aforesaid circumstances, during the pendency of the TEST.CAS. No. 19 of 2013, on 10.09.2015 the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 arrived at a settlement with respect to their ownership rights in the subject property and also the mode and manner in which they would continue to use and occupy separate portions in the subject property. The substratum of the settlement was that the parties agreed to re-construct the subject property with their own funds and occupy distinct portions of the property as per the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed.
4.8. The said Compromise Deed was annexed with the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC i.e., I.A. No. 19380/2015, wherein a prayer was made to the Court to direct the parties to abide by the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed. The said application was signed by each of the three (3) parties and their respective Advocates. The said application was duly supported with the affidavit of each of the three (3) parties.
4.9. The said application was listed before this Court on 17.09.2015 and each of the three (3) parties appeared before the Court in person along with their r
