MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Abhay M.Naik, J.
Anand Kumar Singhai - Appellant
Versus
Yamuna Devi and Others - Respondent
Contempt Petition No. 554 of 2009
Decided On : 14-10-2010
CONTEMPT OF COURT - STAY ORDER - EXECUTION OF DECREE - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - WARRANT OF POSSESSION - WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT - APPLICATION FOR STAY - APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING - ORDER SHEET - REGISTER OF WORK-TICKET - REGISTER-A - REGISTER-B - PROCESS REGISTER - DISPATCH REGISTER - CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER - SIGNATURE OF NAIB NAZIR - REPORT OF NAIB NAZIR - PANCHNAMA - AFFIDAVIT - CONTEMPT PETITION - ADMISSION - FINAL ARGUMENTS - JUDICIAL MIND - IRREGULARITIES - ILLEGALITY - NEXUS - VIGILANCE ENQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, who was the judgment debtor in a civil suit, filed a contempt petition against the respondents, who were the presiding judge of the executing court, the naib nazir, and the decree-holders, alleging that they had deliberately and intentionally flouted a stay order granted by the High Court by giving effect to the decree which was stayed with respect to delivery of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there were numerous irregularities and illegalities in the execution of the decree, including the issuance of warrants of possession and attachment without proper authorization, the failure to issue a memorandum to the naib nazir as directed by the court, and the delivery of possession to the decree-holders after the stay order had been communicated to the executing court. However, the court also found that there was no evidence that the possession of the suit shop was delivered to the decree-holders after the stay order was received, and therefore, the respondents could not be found guilty of contempt of court.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had deliberately and intentionally flouted the stay order granted by the High Court. 2. Whether there were any irregularities or illegalities in the execution of the decree. 3. Whether the possession of the suit shop was delivered to the decree-holders after the stay order was received.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that there were numerous irregularities and illegalities in the execution of the decree, but that there was no evidence that the possession of the suit shop was delivered to the decree-holders after the stay order was received. Therefore, the respondents could not be found guilty of contempt of court. 2. The court held that the irregularities and illegalities in the execution of the decree were suggestive of a nexus between the decree-holder, the executing judge, and the naib nazir, and that this matter should be investigated by the vigilance department.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the respondents were discharged. However, the court directed the registry to refer the matter to the Registrar Vigilance for an enquiry into the irregularities and illegalities in the execution of the decree.
JUDGMENT
This is a contempt petition under sections 10, 12 and 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for taking action under the provisions of the said Act against respondents/contemnors No. 1 - Yamuna Devi, 2 - Ram Manohar, 3 - Shri R. P. Thakur (Presiding Judge, Court of Civil Judge Class I, Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar), and 4 - Shri Salim Khan (Naib Nazir) for their alleged act of having deliberately and intentionally flouted the order of this Court dated 21-10-2009 passed in S. A. No. 544/2009.
2. Facts in short relevant for this petition are that respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted Civil Suit No. 24A/2006 for eviction from the suit shop and recovery of arrears of rent, which was decreed in their favour against the applicant by the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Mungaoli, District Guna vide judgment and decree dated 21-4-2008. Civil Appeal No. 16A/2008 preferred against it was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Judge on 29-9-2009. 30th September, 2009 was public holiday being Sunday, therefore the application for certified copy of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court was submitted on 1-10-2009, which was delivered on 7-10-2009. Applicant on receipt of certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2009, collected the requisite papers of his case from his local counsel and contacted the lawyer at Gwalior for preparation and filing of Second Appeal before this Court. Second appeal along with Stay application was got prepared by the applicant's counsel on 14-10-2009. On account of Deepawali Holidays from 15-10-2009 to 19-10-2009, the appeal could not be submitted before this Court within the said period. In the meantime, on application of respondents No. 1 and 2/decree-holders, warrant of possession and warrant of attachment were ordered to be issued by the Executing Court on 8-10-2009 (Civil Judge, Class I, Mungaoli), which was presided over by respondent No. 3. Pursuant to this, warrant of possession was dispatched on 13-10-2009 vide dispatch No. 286 from the Executing Court, directing thereby Naib Nazir, Mungaoli to submit report on or before 23-10-2009. Copy of warrant of possession is on record as Annexure-B.
3. Applicant, on coming to know of the aforesaid, submitted an application under Order XXI, Rule 26 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code before the Executing Court on 20-10-2009 stating thereby that Second Appeal was already prepared but the same could not be filed on account of Deepawali holidays. A prayer was made to grant few days for submitting second appeal and seeking stay order. It was prayed that till then proceedings with regard to delivery of possession of the suit shop may kindly be stayed. It was also contended by the applicant that he was ready and willing to comply with the conditions which may be imposed by the Executing Court. This application was duly supported by an affidavit. Copy of the application and affidavit are on record as Annexures C and D respectively.
4. Learned Executing Judge i.e. (respondent No. 3) considered the application contained in Annexure-C and dismissed it on the same day holding thereby that the application was submitted on the basis of probabilities. Accordingly, case was ordered to be fixed on 23-10-2009 for the report with regard to execution of warrant of possession.
5. After rejection of application contained in Annexure-C, respondents No. 1 and 2/decree-holders submitted an application on the same day under section 151, Civil Procedure Code before the Executing Court that the applicant has put a lock on the suit shop in order to create obstruction in the execution. Therefore, the warrant of possession could not be executed. Decree-holders prayed that concerned officer may kindly be directed to deliver the possession of the suit shop after breaking open the lock. Copy of the application was supplied to the applicant's counsel at about 4:45 PM on 20-10-2009, which is on record as Annexure-E.
6. Respondent No. 3/Presiding Judge of the Executing C
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.