$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1/2019 SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR ROHILLA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal and Mr. Saideep Kaushik, Advs.

versus SHRI ANIL KUMAR ROHILLA & ANR ......Defendants Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr. Bhaavan Mahajan and Mr. Tanmay S. Surana, Advs. for D-1 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025 I.A. 31529/2025

1. The present Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Rule 4 of the CPC read with Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, has been preferred by the Defendant No. 1, seeking issuance of contempt against Defendant No. 2 for disobedience of the status quo Order dated

08.01.2019 passed by this Court.

2. The present Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff seeking partition of the undivided property bearing No. A3/148, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’) into three equal shares so that each party, i.e., the Plaintiff, and the two Defendants, are each allotted one-

third share in the Suit Property.

3. This Court, vide Order dated 08.01.2019, while issuing summons in the present Suit, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regards to possession of the Suit Property. The relevant extract of the Order dated

08.01.2019 is reproduced below:

“5. The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of possession of property bearing No.A-3/148, Janakpuri, New Delhi till the next date of hearing.”

4. The Order dated 08.01.2019, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the Suit Property. A plain and literal reading of the Order makes it abundantly clear that the restraint imposed by this Court was confined only to possession, and not to construction, renovation, or internal modification.

5. It is the case of the Applicant that despite directions of this Court, the Defendant No. 2 has started construction work on the second floor of the Suit Property. It is stated that the construction and renovation of the rooms on the second floor is being executed, albeit, the directives of this Court on

08.01.2019.

6. The Applicant by way of the present Application has further stated that the Defendant No. 2 does not confer any legal right on the portion of the Suit Property where he has undertaken the construction/renovation, as he does not yet own that portion of the Suit Property and the same is subject matter of the present Suit.

7. In a suit for partition, every person entitled to a portion is the owner of the every inch of the property. Undoubtedly, the second floor of the Suit Property does not belong exclusively to the Defendant No. 2 as the Suit Property is still undivided.

8. There is no dispute regarding the existence of the Order dated 08.01.2019, nor is there any serious dispute that the parties were aware of the said Order. The controversy centres around the scope and import of the direction to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the Suit Property.

9. This Court vide Order dated 08.01.2019 has directed status quo in respect of possession. In the opinion of this Court, the contention that the construction/renovation in the said portion amounts to violation of the Order dated 08.01.2019, cannot be accepted. The contention in the present Application that the said Order necessarily restrains all parties from altering the physical condition of the Suit Property or raising any construction, whatsoever, also cannot be accepted.

10. The case of the Applicant is only limited to the plea of renovation works being done by the Defendant No. 2 in a portion of Suit Property which is in his possession.

11. It is a settled principle of law that contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded by implication or inference. The alleged contemnor can only be proceeded against for violation of what is explicitly prohibited by the order.

12. The Apex Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) 5 SCC 665 has observed as under:

“38. The power exercised by a court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the