Shanti And Others vs Amarjeet Singh And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This Contempt Petition has been filed by Late Govindlal Bagga (now through his Legal Representatives), for non-compliance of Order dated 7.7.2020 and 27.3.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1233/2000 filed by the Respondents/ Contemnors.

The VII Additional District Judge, Bilaspur had passed judgment and decree dated 8.5.2000 in Civil Case No.53-A/1998 directing the Respondents/ Contemnors to hand over the vacant possession of the suit building. However, against the said judgment and decree, the Respondents/Contemnors preferred Civil Revision No.1233/2000 before this Court in which interim orders were passed on 7.7.2000 and thereafter on 27.3.2001 directing that if the applicants (Respondents/Contemnors herein) are still in possession, they shall not be dispossessed in execution of the decree.

It is thereafter on 31.3.2001 the original applicant/ petitioner (Late Govindlal Bagga) filed the present Contempt Petition No.18/2001 against the Respondents/Contemnors for non-compliance of the orders dated 7.7.2000 and 27.3.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1233/2000 which (Civil Revision) ultimately stood dismissed on 2.2.2015 for want of prosecution.

It is apposite to mention herein that on 25.8.2001, this Court had directed to issue notice to Respondent/Contemnor No.2 - Ram Prakash to show cause for having filed a false reply and affirming the same in his affidavit by saying that the statement is true to his personal knowledge and belief. In this regard, another contempt case i.e. Contempt Petition No.50/2001 was registered suo moto, which has been decided by this Court today itself by a separate order.

Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that in the first of week of March, 2001 the Respondents/Contemnors had started demolishing the suit house and since the matter was still sub judice before this Court and during the pendency of the matter, the Respondents/ Contemnors have demolished the suit house, which has caused prejudiced to the merits of the case.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Contemnors submits that the suit property had already been sold by the Respondents/ Contemnors on 29.10.1988 to one Baal Krishna Savanni and Sardar Harbhajan Singh. He submits that no contempt has been committed by the Respondents/Contemnors and therefore they deserve to be discharged from contempt proceeding.

I have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

Admittedly, the decree for handing over the vacant possession of the suit house was passed on 8.5.2000 by the Civil Court in favour of the original Applicant/ Petitioner Govindlal Bagga (who died during pendency of the present Contempt Petition, now through his LRs) and which was challenged by Respondents/ Contemnors in Civil Revision No.1233/2000 in which this Court on 7.7.2000 and 27.3.2001 had granted interim protection in favour of the Respondents/ Contemnors. Thereafter, the said Civil Revision No.1233/2000 was dismissed on 2.2.2015 for want of prosecution. The Contempt Petitioners have not filed any petition before this Court. They in fact are seeking that the said orders of this Court granted in favour of the Respondents/Contemnors have not been complied with.

However, another fact which has been brought to fore is that the original Contempt Petitioner i.e. Late Govindlal Bagga on 10.7.2000 had filed an application for execution of the decree dated 8.3.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.53-A/1998, which was registered as Civil Execution Case No.231-A/2000 and which stood continue and from to time warrants for possession were issued and ultimately on 22.1.2018 the executing Court directed for issuance of warrant of possession on payment of process fee and this was repeated lastly on 8.2.2018 also, but ultimately on 27.2.2018 the executing Court proceeded to dismiss the said execution case for want of prosecution on the ground that despite various opportunities given to the decree holder, no process fee has been paid by him and he is also not pursuing the matter which is pending since 2000. It is stated at the bar that an application for recalling of the order dated 27.2.2018 has been filed by the Contempt Petitioners being M.J.C. (Civil) No.259/2019 which was dismissed by the Civil Court on 17.3.2000 against which W.P.(227) No.509/2020 filed by the Contempt Petitioners herein is already pending consideration before this Court.

Thus, in view of the fact that the Civil Revision No.1233/2000, in which the interim orders dated 7.7.2000 and 27.3.2001 were passed in favour of the Respondents/Contemnors and it is for wilfull disobedience/non-compliance of these orders that the present Contempt Petition has been filed, already stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 2.2.2015 and further keeping in view the fact that the Contempt Petitioners have already pursuant to the decree dated 8.5.2000 levied execution way back on 10.7.2000 in Civil Execution Case No.231-A/2000 and though warrants of possession have been directed to be issued from to time, but the Contempt Petitioners did not proceed to follow and comply with the orders of the Court and the said execution case ultimately dismissed by the executing Court by Order dated 27.2.2018 and the restoration application filed by the Contempt Petitioner in respect of the said order has also been dismissed by the Civil Court by its Order dated 17.3.2020 which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(227) No.509/2020 pending before this Court, I am of the view that no case as such for contempt of court is made out at present as wilful disobedience/non-compliance of the aforesaid orders of this Court has not been stated and established, more particularly when the Contempt Petitioners have already levied the execution.

In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court which even otherwise has to be sparingly exercised. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed and the Respondents/Contemnors stand discharged from the contempt proceeding.

However, it is made clear that any observation made in present order shall not in any manner prejudice the right of the parties in W.P. (227) No.509/2020 and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the said petition.

Let the record of the Court below, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.