Allahabad High Court
Savita Co - Operative Housing Society ... vs Praveen Kumar Tyagi (Additional Civil ... on 19 September, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5532 of 2019 Applicant :- Savita Co - Operative Housing Society Limited Opposite Party :- Praveen Kumar Tyagi (Additional Civil Judge -First (J.D.) Kanpur Nagar) Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Swaroop (Singh),Shivakant Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
By order dated 31.3.2015 passed in Matters under Article 227 No.1043 of 2015 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:
"It is stated that a decree in favour of the petitioner was passed, in respect of which a direction was issued by this Court on 29.7.2010 to proceed with the execution and conclude it within a period of six months.
The aforesaid order of this Court appears to have been challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10099 of 2014, which has been dismissed on 8th May, 2014. It is contended that despite the order of the Court having attained finality up to the Apex Court, the executing court is not complying with direction issued by this Court.
Considering the fact that the order passed by this Court has been affirmed with dismissal of civil appeal by the Apex Court, there appears no justification on part of the executing court not to execute the decree.
The petition is finally disposed of directing the executing court concerned to forthwith proceed with Execution Case No. 4 of 2006, and conclude the same, in accordance with law, by fixing short dates, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no legal impediment in doing so. No adjournment would be allowed to either of the parties, except on payment of cost."
Again the applicant had approached this Court by preferring Matters under Article 227 No.5590 of 2019 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 25.7.2019 with following observations:-
"The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuing direction to the executing court to conclude the proceedings of Execution Case No.4 of 2006 expeditiously.
The petitioner, who is decree holder, is executing the decree passed in his favour in the year 1989.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that objection under Section 47 filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed by the executing court and the said order was affirmed by this Court and by Supreme Court but the execution proceedings have not been concluded so far.
A perusal of the record of the petition reveals that on 31.3.2015, this Court in a matter under Article 227 bearing No.1043 of 2015 claiming the same relief, had directed the executing court to decide the execution proceedings, by fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Since there is already a direction by this Court, therefore, no purpose would be served in repeating the same direction. However, it is left open to the petitioner to bring the fact regarding passing of the order dated 31.3.2015 before the executing court and if the executing court still did not comply with the directions given in the said order, it shall be open to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the order-sheet, which is appended as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application. A bare perusal of the order sheet it is apparent that only general dates have been given in the matter and no sincere effort has been made by the Presiding Officer to finalize the proceeding well within the stipulated time. Even though while disposing of the aforesaid matter no time was stipulated, meanwhile more than 15 years have lapsed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order and finalise the proceeding to its logical conclusion within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 RKP