Bhag Mal vs Raghu Nath, s/o Beg Raj and others

R.N. Mittal, J.(Oral)

This petition for contempt under Section 12 of the contempt of the Courts Act, 1971, has been filed by the petitioner on the facts detailed below

Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession by way of preemption against Bhag Mal petitioner which was decreed by the trial court. The appeal by Bhag Mal against that judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Narmail, on 1st June, 1991. Thereafter, he moved an application before the Additional District Judge, Narnaul stating that the copy of the judgment and decree was not available to enable him to prefer the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the execution of the decree be stayed for some time so that he may file an appeal. Notice of the application was given to the counsel for Respondent No. 1 who made a statement that if possession of the property had not been taken till then the respondent would not take its possession before 26th June, 1981. It is alleged that inspite of the undertaking given by his counsel the respondent took symbolical possession of the property on 22nd June, 1991 in collusion with Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is further alleged that now Respondent No. 1 is interfering with the possession of the petitioner in collusion with Respondents Nos. 4 to 14. Consequently, it is prayed that action be taken against the respondents under section 12 of the Act.

The petition has been contested by the respondents. The plea or Respondent No. 1 is that he was not informed by his counsel about the undertaking given by him. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have averred that the,, did rot know about the undertaking given by the counsel of Respondent No. I. Respondents Nos. 4 to 14 have taken a plea that they did not interfere with the possession of the property.

The case was sent to the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Rewari for recording the evidence and submission of the same to this Court with his report which have been received.

The first question that arises for determination is as to whether Respondent No. 1 is guilty of the Contempt of the Court as inspite of an undertaking given by his counsel he took possession or the property on 22nd June, 1981.

it is not disputed that the Counsel of Respondent No. 1 gave an undertaking in the Court that his client would not take possession of the property till 26th June, 1981 and that he inspite of the undertaking took possession thereof.

Mr. Chabal lips strenuously argued that the counsel made a statement before Cot without instructions from Respondent No. 1 and the latter was not informed about the undertaking. According to him in that station he cannot be held guilty of contempt of the Court. I regret my it ability to accept this submission It is true that the respondent stated fault he did not come to know about the undertaking and his counsel said that he made the statement without instructions from his client, but these statements cannot he accepted. It is not believable that a counsel would give an, undertaking without the instructions of his client. If be had no instructions, he mould have requested the Court to adjourn the case to sonic other date for seeking further instructions. Moreover, statement Of a counsel is considered to be that of the party itself Therefore, the party cannot be allowed to say, that it did not know about the statement given by the counsel on its behalf In the circumstances, the plea of the respondent that he did not know about the undertaking, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the view that he is guilty of contempt of the Court.

Regarding Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, there is no sufficient evidence on the record to show that they had been informed about the undertaking given on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

It is well settled that proceedings under the Contempt of the Court Act are quasi criminal proceedings and it is for the petitioner to prove the charge beyond a shadow of doubt. In the present case, in my view there is no evidence to hold the said respondents guilty of Contempt of the Court

Regarding Respondents 4 to 14, there is no evidence to show that they are interfering with the possession of the property. In the circumstances, if cannot be held that they are guilty of contempt of the court.

For Vie aforesaid reasons I partly accept the petition, convict Respond, No. 1 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for two weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one week. At the oral request of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, I grant six week time to Respondent No. 1 to file appeal and to deposit the fine. He shall, however, furnish bail bound in the sum of Rs. 2000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar.