Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Prakash (Deceased) Thru Lrs vs Vidyawati (Deceased) Thru. Lrs And Ors on 23 November, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1994/1998
RAJ PRAKASH (DECEASED) THRU LRs
..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav and Mr. Sourabh
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
VIDYAWATI (DECEASED) THRU. LRs AND ORS.
..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Dushyant Sisodiya, Advocate for
respondent No.6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 23.11.2022 I.A.11180/2018 in CCP No. 116/1999 in CS(OS) No. 1994/1998
1. An application on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for revival of the contempt petition.
2. It is submitted in the application that CCP No. 116/1999 was filed in CS(OS) No. 1994/1998. Vide Order dated 29.01.2010, it was observed that the Regular First Appeal has been filed against the Order of the rejection of the plaint and the said contempt petition be revived after decision in RFA 865/2005 titled as Raj Prakash (since deceased) through LR's v. Vidyawati (Deceased) through LR's. The RFA was decided and vide Order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 1 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:30 31.07.2018, and the impugned Order under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was set aside and the case was transferred to the Rohini Courts as the jurisdiction was of the Civil Court. Accordingly, the suit was transferred to the District Courts, Rohini. It is submitted in the application that in terms of the Order dated 29.01.2010, the Contempt Petition registered vide CCP No. 116/1999 may be revived and be decided in accordance with the law.
3. Submissions heard.
4. Considering that the suit which had been rejected, stands revived and transferred to District Courts, Rohini, the Present application is allowed and CCP No. 116/1999 is hereby revived.
CCP(O) 116/1999
1. The plaintiff had filed the present Contempt Petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging that the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and the alleged transferees namely, M/s. Shitabdi Builders and Promoters Private Limited and Shri. P.R Jain be proceeded for contempt of this Court and be punished in accordance with law for violation and willful disobedience of the injunction Order dated 20.06.1990.
2. In order to understand the context, it would be pertinent to give the factual matrix in brief.
3. The plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit before the Court of learned ADJ, District Court for Permanent Injunction and Declaration pertaining to the suit land as described in paragraph 12 of the plaint. An interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed along with the suit.
4. The learned ADJ vide Order dated 20.06.1990 directed the plaintiff Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 2 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:30 and the defendant no. 1 to 5 to maintain "status quo" in respect of the possession, construction and title of the suit land and the defendants were directed to be served for appearance before the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi.
5. The defendant no. 2 moved an application dated 14.01.1998 for dismissal of the suit and for vacating the ex parte ad interim status quo Order dated 20.06.1990. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 also moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 on 24.10.1994, but the application was dismissed.
6. An application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide Order dated 19.12.1997. Pursuant to the amendment, the Court was left with no pecuniary jurisdiction and the original suit was returned to the plaintiff's counsel to be filed before this Court, which was filed accordingly.
7. Vide I.A. No. 8119/1998, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff in this suit. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 vide Order dated 18.01.1999 were restrained from receiving compensation amount from the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the Award, details which were mentioned in the Order dated 17.09.1998.
8. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the interim Order dated 20.06.1990 continued and remained in operation and in force despite the plaint having been returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. It is claimed that in flagrant violation of the interim Order dated 20.06.1990, the land which was the subject matter of the suit, had been illegally mutated in favour of the transferee in the Khatoni of defendant No. 2 in 1997. It is further asserted that defendant no. 2 in collusion and conspiracy with defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 3 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:30 and 6, sold different portions of the areas despite there being status quo Order dated 20.06.1990.
9. Further, defendant nos. 3, 5 and 6 started raising construction of Khasra No. 437 in violation of the Orders dated 20.06.1990. A prayer was therefore made that respondent nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and alleged transferee namely M/s. Shitabdi Builders and Promoters Private Limited and Shri. P.R Jain be proceeded against for contempt of the Orders of this Court and be punished accordingly.
10. Submissions heard.
11. The record and the submissions made in the application show that the "status quo" Orders were made on 20.06.1990 by the Civil Court bearing CS(OS) No. 490/1990 but on account of enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction by way of amendment, the suit was returned. The present suit bearing CS(OS) No. 1994/1998 which is the present suit, was filed afresh before this Court.
"The Status quo" Orders essentially came to an end with the return of plaint in 1998.
12. The interim injunction in the present suit had been given on 17.09.1998 whereby the defendants had been restrained from taking the compensation in respect of the Award as mentioned therein. Essentially, the plaintiff is claiming violation of stay dated 20.06.1990 in the suit which was returned in 1998.
13. In regard to the maintainability and tenability of the assertions made in the application, it may be observed that the Contempt Petition is essentially under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC for alleged violation of the status quo Order of the Civil Court dated 20.06.1990 while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 4 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:3014. The basic issue which has arisen in the present proceedings is whether this Contempt application should be tried independently by this Court or should it also be transferred to the Rohini Courts where the main suit has already been transferred vide Order dated 31.07.2018.
15. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff has vehemently argued that this is a petition under Contempt of Courts Act and it is only this Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the present contempt petition.
16. Before getting into the merits, it is important to re-affirm and reassert that the purpose of the contempt jurisdiction is not just to ensure execution or implementation of orders, but to secure public confidence in the administration of justice itself. The power of the Courts to make orders and give directions would be much diminished without the power to ensure the enforcement of those orders and to punish those who violate them as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Parashar Vs. Prashant Bhushan (2001) 6 SCC 735.
17. In P.D. Vs. U.W 261(2019) DLT 268, Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that while the remedy under Orde 39 Rule 2A is not under the Court of Contempt Act but whether to proceed under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.
18. Even though Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has also been invoked along with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, but Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act itself provides that in case it is found that there is violation of the orders of the Subordinate Court, the matter may be referred to the High Court to take cognizance of the Contempt of the Subordinate Courts. The learned Trial Court is therefore, well competent to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 5 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:30 consider the application and to decide the same in accordance with the law.
19. As is evident from the submissions made by the plaintiff himself, the additional provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 may have mentioned along with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC but essentially contents of the application show that the alleged violation is of the "status quo Orders"
granted vide Order dated 20.06.1990 by the learned Civil Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
20. In Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. Harnam Kaur and Ors 238 (2017) DLT 791, similar facts are in hand arose and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC was directed to be transferred to the District Court on the transfer of the main suit. Therefore, this application also needs to be transferred to the District Courts, Rohini.
21. Since the main suit has already been transferred to the District Courts, Rohini, this contempt is also to be tried along with the main suit and is hereby transferred to the District Courts, Rohini. The observations made herein are without prejudice to the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Sessions Judge on 12.12.2022, who may mark this contempt to the Court to which the main suit is marked for trial.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J NOVEMBER 23, 2022/PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 1994/1998 Page 6 of 6 By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:30.11.2022 12:14:30