Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Manjeet Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Jaspinder Singh - Respondent
Civil Contempt Petition No. 27 of 2016
Decided on : 06-08-2021
R.D.S.S. Kharlia, Advocate, Deepender Rajpurohit, Advocate, Nidhi Singhvi, Advocate, Sanjeet Purohit, Advocate, Anil Kumar Bissa, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of not determining the disputed fact of possession in the contempt proceedings, considering the potential prejudicial effect on pending cases.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Specific Performance of Agreement - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - S.B. Civil First Appeal No.324/2015 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim of possession, the interim order to maintain status quo, and the findings of the judicial enquiry. The court found that the petitioner did not have possession of the land when the trial court passed the judgment, and dismissed the contempt petition based on the findings of the judicial enquiry and the potential prejudicial effect on pending cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents flouted an order to maintain status quo of the possession of the suit property, claiming to have been forcibly ejected by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have possession of the land when the trial court passed the judgment, and dismissed the contempt petition based on the findings of the judicial enquiry and the potential prejudicial effect on pending cases.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's claim of possession and the alleged flouting of the interim order by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the petitioner did not have possession of the land when the trial court passed the judgment, and dismissed the contempt petition based on the findings of the judicial enquiry and the potential prejudicial effect on pending cases.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the notices of contempt were discharged.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner herein has preferred the present contempt petition praying that the respondents be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for flouting the order dated 28.10.2015, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.324/2015.
2. It may be noticed that the plaintiff Gajan Singh had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.02.1991 and 28.05.1991, executed in his favour, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 03.09.2015.
3. An appeal came to be filed by the LRs of said Gajan Singh (respondents No.1 and 2 herein), which was admitted in the presence of both the parties and following interim order came to be passed on 28.10.2015:-
"Meanwhile status quo of the possession of the suit property, as it exists today, shall be maintained by all the parties."
4. Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of passing of the interim order by this Court, petitioner was in possession and has been forcibly ejected by the respondents.
5. Mr. Kharlia (in the presence of his client - who was defendant in the suit) makes an assertion that the petitioner came into possession on 16.09.2015, after the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015 was passed by the trial Court dismissing plaintiffs suit.
6. In a bid to establish petitioner s possession, learned counsel relies upon Annex.Rej/6 (page 126) - a report dated 24.10.2015 of the Patwari and contends that the petitioner had got done the demarcation (Nishandehi) of the disputed land. He also relies upon water slips dated 16.09.2015 and 22.11.2016 (page 117 and 116 respectively) and submits that these water slips containing petitioner s name establish petitioner s possession over the subject land.
7. Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the trial, a Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court, who had given a categorical finding about her clients (plaintiffs ) possession over the land. She further submits that during the pendency of present contempt petition a judicial enquiry was ordered by this Court on 16.08.2017, in furtherance whereof the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar has submitted his report clearly indicating that on 28.10.2015, the respondents were in possession. While maintaining that her clients had an uninterrupted possession since 1991, she contends that the petitioner has tried to create paper-evidence to show her possession. She further adds that even the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner does not prove petitioner s possession.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. According to petitioner s own case, she has come into possession only after passing of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015. It is submitted by Mr. Kharlia that after coming into possession the water slips were got issued, whereas in the contempt petition, the petitioner has asserted that as she had the possession the land was recorded in her name on 09.09.2016.
10. Petitioner has made the finding recorded in para No.34 of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015 as a basis to contend that she was in possession during trial. Such assertion is found incorrect in the face of petitioner s own version that she came into possession on 16.09.2015 (after the judgment and decree was passed on 03.09.2015).
11. As such, the petitioner has taken possession of the land after the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015, which shows that she did not have possession of the land, when the trial Court had passed the judgment on 03.09.2015.
12. As the title of the land was with the petitioner, plaintiffs suit was dismissed; still in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs (contemnors), a Coordinate Bench of this Court ordered to maintain status quo, which clearly suggests that on the date of decree, present petitioner (defendant) did not have possession.
13. Concededly the petitioner has come into possession (on 16.09.2015) after the dismissal of plaintiffs
