Pawan Kumar Singhal vs Shri S.P. Sharma, Managing Director, The Haryana Diasy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. and Another

A.S. Nehra, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents, stating that the petitioner is an employee of the Haryana Diary Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Federation)

The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 108 of 1986 which was decreed on 16-3-1991. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

"In view of my findings of the above noted issues, the plaintiff succeeds in his suit which is hereby decreed with costs and older of suspension (Exhibit D-l) of the plaintiff is quashed with all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc., which shall be paid to him within the period of three months from today alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law."

The petitioner has stated that he submitted his joining report on 22-3-1991 but he was told by the concerned functionaries of the respondents that he should await order and till then he was not to attend the office; that he petitioner, after awaiting "for some time, sent reminders and also contacted the concerned functionaries personally, but all his efforts proved fruitless; that, in the meantime, the respondents filed an appeal, but the learned Additional District Judge did not stay the operation of the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1991 passed by the trial Court; and that, in the absence of stay of operation of that judgment and decree, it is incumbent upon the respondents to obey the mandate of the Court but the respondents are intentionally not complying with the directions of the Court and, therefore, the respondents have committed the contempt of Court.

Notice of this petition was given to the respondents The respondents have filed replies. Respondent No. 1 has stated in his reply that the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1991 is an executable decree and the execution proceedings lie under Order XXI Rule 32(2) of the CPC and, thus, the contempt-of Court proceedings are not maintainable. Respondent No. 2 has stated in his reply that he remained as Chairman of the Federation only for 3 1/2 months, i.e from 2-8-1991 to 18-11-1991 by virtue of his appointment as Commissioner and Secretary Co-operation, Haryana; and that the judgment and decree was passed on 16-3-1991 by the trial Court and the present contempt petition has been filed on 29-11-1991 when respondent No. 2 was not. the Chairman of the Federation. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that, for the first time, the matter came to his notice on 22-7-1992 when the representation made by the petitioner to the Chief Minister of Haryana, was referred to him; that the said matter was referred by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 on 26-8-1991 for immediate necessary action, vide copy of letter Annexure ''R'' annexed with the reply of respondent No. 2; and that thereafter a reminder was also issued on l-10-1991 by respondent No. 2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition is not maintainable in the present form in this Court, because the decree dated 16-3-1991 passed by the trial Court is an executable decree and execution proceedings lie under Order XXI Rule 32(2) of the CPC and, therefore, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are not maintainable. The petitioner has abused the process of this Court by filing the contempt petition against the respondents. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.