$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 28th November, 2025

Pronounced on : 17^th December, 2025

+ CONT.APP.(C) 20/2025, CM APPLs. 73021/2025, 73022/2025 &

73023/2025

JUPINDER KAUR MAKER & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Desh Raj and Ms.

Rupal Gupta, Advocates

versus

PRITPAL SINGH .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Ms. Niharika

Tiwari & Mr. Kunal Gosain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

J U D G M E N T

Per DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The present contempt appeal, preferred under Section 19(1)(a) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1971‟) is directed against judgment dated 14.11.2025 (reserved on 06.10.2025), passed by learned Single Judge in CONT. CAS(C) 755/2021, whereby the

appellants have been held guilty of contempt of Court.

2. On previous date, i.e., 26.11.2025, learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection about maintainability of the instant appeal, as no punishment was awarded by the learned Single Judge vide his impugned

Digitally Signed CONT.APP.(C) 20/2025 Page 1 of 13

judgment, passed on 14.11.2025. Detailed arguments were heard and in view of the observations made in said order, the matter was kept today for hearing on merits of the case.

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that learned Single Judge has decided the matter on merits and held the appellants guilty, though the arguments were heard and order was reserved qua the preliminary objections, which were raised on behalf of the appellants-alleged contemnors.

4. The first argument, which was advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the arguments were not heard on merits, when reserved on 06.10.2025, yet, the case has been decided on merits and the appellants have been held guilty of contempt without there being any arguments on behalf of the appellants on merits or whether any contempt was committed.

5. He submitted that the appellants had raised a fundamental question about the maintainability of contempt petition in relation to the order dated 07.02.2020, contending that it did not amount to a judgment and decree, because the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn. He added that the order dated 07.02.2020 does not fall within the ambit of a Consent Decree in terms of Order XXIII, Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure („CPC‟), 1908 and since no decree was drawn and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be said that the alleged non-compliance of the order dated

07.02.2020 amounts to contempt.

6. He further submitted that the Execution Application filed by the respondent was rejected by the Executing Court, holding that an Order of withdrawal of a Suit does not amount to a decree and such order is not Digitally Signed CONT.APP.(C) 20/2025 Page 2 of 13 enforceable or executable. While pointing out that said order has attained finality, learned Senior Counsel contended that the respondents have filed the contempt petition and argued that if an order is inexecutable, how can a contempt lie qua such an order?

7. Learned Senior Counsel invited Court‟s attention towards the proceedings dated 28.08.2025 in the Contempt Case No. 755/2021 and contended that learned Single Judge had observed that the arguments shall be heard on maintainability while posting the matter to 23.09.2025. He asserted with vehemence that the matter was heard for some time on 23.09.2025 and thereafter on 06.10.2025, on maintainability of the Contempt Petition only and no arguments were advanced on merits, yet, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order on 14.11.2025 to the utter shock and surprise of the appellants wherein they have been held guilty of Contempt of Court.

8. He further argued that the learned Single Judge has not followed the settled and established procedure meant for the proceedings under the Act of 19