IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. - This petition seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 arising out of the order dated 22.07.2023 in CS DJ No. 833/2019 alleging that there is wilful and malafide refusal to follow, disobey and evade the law laid down with respect to giving primacy and precedence to the perjury application over the civil suit in accordance to M.S Sherrif v State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 and Syed Askari Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2009 SC 3232.

2. In the present case, respondent no. 1 is the learned ADJ who heard the arguments and passed the said order. Respondent no. 2 is the counsel representing respondent no. 3 before the District Court and respondent no. 3 was the private respondent in the civil suit filed by the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit no. 1742 of 1997 (new number CS No. 186 of 2009, and renumbered as CS No. 833 of 2019) for possession of immovable property, namely Plot No. B-15, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi, admeasuring 433.5 sq. yds. (65'x60') against respondent no. 3 before this court. However, on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred before the learned TizHazari Courts. The petitioner had also filed for mesne profits.

4. The respondent no. 3 filed a written statement on 13.04.1998 in the civil suit alleging to be the 'original owner' of the suit property. In support of his submission, respondent no. 3 on 25.09.2009 filed documents including an unregistered GPA, Agreement and Receipt dated 17.11.1978 executed by one Mr. Ulfat in favour of one Mr. Jitan and an unregistered GPA, Agreement and Receipt dated 15.07.1985 executed by the said Mr. Jitan in favour of the respondent no. 3.

5. On 28.01.1993, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent no. 3 and FIR no. 57/93 u/s 448,420,468, 471 IPC was registered. It is stated that the original documents dated 17.11.1978 are currently in police custody for investigation of the afore-mentioned FIR, pending before CMM Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

6. The respondent no. 3 had also filed Civil Suit No. 1318 of 1993 titled Pratap Singh v. Vijay Kumar, IAS and Ors, which was decided vide judgment dated 25.10.2008 wherein a decree of permanent injunction was passed in favour of respondent no.3. It is stated that by the petitioner that in the judgement it has been categorically held that "there is an inherent defect in the title of the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 3" as there was no document to show how Mr. Ulfat acquired the property and through what document the suit property was transferred in the name of Mr. Jitan."

7. The petitioner has filed an application dated 29.05.2023 praying for declaration against the judgment dated 25.10.2008 being declared as null and void.

8. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 14.05.2012 and the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 14/2012 (later renumbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 60817/2016) for restoration on the ground that the next date of hearing was wrongly recorded in the order as 14.05.2012 and the correct date was 15.05.2012, on which date the petitioner was present.

9. The respondent no. 3 filed a reply to the said application on 01.10.2012 opposing the restoration of the suit on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as the suit was dismissed earlier on various occasions and therefore the petitioner is guilty of not pursuing the case diligently.

10. In the said reply, it was stated that the case of the petitioner has been dismissed on 7-8 occasions. This according to the petitioner was a false averment. The petitioner hence filed Perjury Application No. 811 of 2019 against the respondent no. 3 before the District Court.

11. During the pendency of the same, the petitioner failed to appear on 09.07.2016 and sought an adjournment due to viral fever. On the opposition of the counsel for res