Maya Engineering Works vs Faqir Chand

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. (Oral)

This contempt petition has been filed under sections 11 and 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, on the following facts.

The respondent is the owner of agricultural land, Rectangle No. 49, Killa No. 15 (8 Kanals) and Rectangle No. 48, Killa No. 1013 (1 Kanal 10 Marlas), situated in the revenue estate of village Charsentli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. He entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 27th April 1981, for ellir.g 5 kanals 12 marlas out of the former number and whole of the latter number for a consideration of Rs. 7 1,000/to the petitioner A sum of Rs. 30,000/ was paid by the petitioner to him on that date and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 41,000/ would be paid at the time of registration of the saledeed. Thereafter, it is alleged that the parties agreed that instead of sale of Rectangle No. 48, Killa No. 10/3, the respondent would sell I kanal 10 Marlas of agricultural land more out of Rectangle No. 49, Killa No. 15. Consequently, a sale deed was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner for the land, measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas out of Rectangle No. 49. killa No. 15. and was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar. The parties appeared before the SubRegistrar on 10th June, 198 1, when the, SubRegistrar required the respondent to produce the incometax clearance certificate. Thereafter, he did not appear.

The case of the petitioner further is that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction alleging that the saledeed had been executed by the fraud and. therefore, he should be restrained from getting the saledeed registered. In that suit, he obtained adinterim injunction against the petitioner which was later on got vacated by him. The respondent filed an appeal against that order to the District Judge, Faridabad, who accepted the same and granted ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent. The petitioner came up in revision petition to this court wherein a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner would purchase the same numbers which were agreed upon by the respondent to sell him originally and the saledeed before the SubRegistrar would be got rectified and registered accordingly. It is alleged that the respondent neither appeared before the SubRegistrar for rectification or the saledeed nor forgetting the same registered. Thus, he was guilty of contempt of the Court.

The petition has been contested by the respondent who, inter alia pleaded that his son Prem Chand, Mehar Chand, and Banwari Lal and wife Brahma Devi filed two suits against him and the petitioner wherein they sought injunction that he be restrained from alienating the property to the petitioner or any other person and in that suit an ad interim injunction had been issued against him not to alienate the property till decision of the suit. It is further stated by the respondent that if the injunction order is vacated, he has no objection in getting the saledeed rectified and registred in accordance with the terms of the compromise effected in the, High Court.

The main question that arises for determination is as to what, is the effect of ad interim injunction which has been issued by the Civil court against the respondent not to alienate the property till decision of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contend that the suit is It collusive one and in fact has been got filed by the respondent because he wants to back out of the compromise in the revision petition. On the other band, N.Y. Gour learned counsel for the respondent, has Vehemently urged that the respondent was ready to give any assistance to the petitioner to get the injunction order vacated and in case the same was vacated, be was ready to fulfil the terms of the compromise arrived at between them in the High Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. It is not disputed that an injunction has been issued by the Subordinate Judge restraining the respondent from alienating the property. The sale cannot be completed in favour of a purchaser unless the document of sale is registered. Thus, the execution of the document by the respondent in favour of the petitioner is inchoate till the document is registered. In that situation, the injunction order is applicable to the present sale. There is nothing on the record to show that the order obtained by the sons and the wife of the respondent is, collusive. Merely because they are the sons and wife of the respondent, it cannot be said that the order has been obtained collusively by the respondent. it may be highlighted that Mr. Gour was ready to help the petitioner in getting the stay order vacated but the petitioner did not agree to that.

It is wellsettled that the proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act are quasicriminal in nature and it is for the petitioner to prove that the respondent committed the contempt of Court beyond a shadow of doubt. In the present case, in my view, he has failed to do so.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the contempt petition and dismiss the same.