Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 861
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Prakash Tatia
Baldev Das - Appellant
Versus
Allabux - Respondent
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 22 of 2003
Decided On : 03/27/2006
Mr. M.S. Purohit, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M. Bora, for the Respondent.
Willful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt, but the court may consider leniency based on the circumstances and the defendant's actions.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Eviction of Tenant - Contempt of Courts Act - Section 2(b)
Fact of the Case:
The defendant, a tenant, was ordered to vacate the premises by a certain date but failed to do so, leading to a contempt petition by the petitioner. The defendant eventually delivered possession of the premises during the pendency of the contempt proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's failure to comply with the order to vacate constituted willful disobedience of the court's order, but considering the defendant's apology, old age, and the delivery of possession, a lenient view was taken.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant's failure to deliver possession of the premises constituted contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's willful disobedience of the court's order constituted contempt, but considering the circumstances, a lenient view was taken.
Final Decision: The contempt proceedings were dropped on the condition that the defendant pay compensation to the petitioner within two months, with the possibility of revival of the contempt petition if the compensation was not paid.
Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The suit for eviction of tenant (contemner) was filed which was decreed by the trial Court on 03.05.2001. The appeal against the decree of trial Court for eviction of the contemner was dismissed by the appellate Court on 20.11.2001. Thereafter, second appeal being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 62/2002 was dismissed by this Court on 10.07.2002. While dismissing the appeal, this Court ordered that the contemner/defendant is given time to vacate the suit premises by or before 30.04.2003 on giving undertaking with usual conditions before the trial Court within a period of three weeks for the date of order of this Court.
3. Admittedly, the undertaking was submitted by the contemner before the trial Court, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure 2. Despite this undertaking, the possession was not delivered by the contemner and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, by that, the contemner has committed contempt of this Courts order by violating the conditions of undertaking, under the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also submitted that there was no interim order from any Court till the date expired for vacating the suit premises. According to the petitioner, thereafter, a petition was filed by the brothers of the contemner under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, wherein also, the contemner was not specifically directed to not to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It is also submitted that the contemner did not submit reply to the petition under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, filed by his own brothers resisting the delivery of possession and did not disclose the complete facts before the Court under which he contested the suit and took the benefit of the order of this Court dated 10.07.2003, therefore, the conduct of the contemner speaks volumes against him, therefore, he was liable to be punished, therefore, the petitioner submitted this contempt petition.
4. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the contemner has delivered the possession of the suit shop on 20.03.2006.
5. Learned Counsel for the contemner submits that the contemner has already tendered unconditional apology and submits that the contemner was put in wrong box as the contemner was not knowing at the time of giving undertaking that his brothers will revolt against him. It is also submitted that since the possession has been delivered to the petitioner, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be dropped as contemner has already purge the contempt.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts.
7. This Court is constrained to observe that the tendency of giving undertaking and thereafter, not delivering the possession of the property is the most rampant. It is also painful that the objections are filed by none else than by their brothers, sister or any close associate. It may be possible that in some cases, there may be collusive decree but unless and until it is proved that there are reasons to believe that the decree is collusive decree, the Courts have reason to believe that the decrees are not collusive. The decree is required to be executed with all force in its true spirit. The decree itself contains direction to the Judgment debtor to do something still unfortunately, the decree holder is required to execute it by execution proceedings under Order 21, CPC, where the decree holder can get the benefit of decree alone and the Judgment debtor can get the benefit of all technicalities of law which resulted in people saying "reel better starts after decree”. Even after amendment of CPC, several times and lastly in 2002, it has not been made obligatory upon the Judgment debtor to comply with the directions given in the decree and submit before the Court that he has complied with the directions given by the Court in the decree.
8. Much is required to b
