Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish Prasad vs Ramji Lal Meena on 17 May, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT JAGDISH PRASAD AVASTHI VS. RAMJI LAL MEENA AND ORS. S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No. 556/1993 in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 20 of 1988 under section 3 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and Order 39 Rules 2 A CPC for disobeying the order dated 3.11.1992 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar by which he directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute. Date of Order : May 17 ,2011 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. J.K.Singhi for the petitioner Mr. Raghunandan Sharma for the respondents. --- BY THE COURT :
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 3 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and under Order 39 Rules 2 A CPC for disobeying the order dated 3.11.1992 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar by which he directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute.
2. In the contempt petition the petitioner prays as under :
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this contempt petition may kindly be accepted and the non-petitioners may be punished for committing contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 3.11.92 and taking possession of the suit property in possession of the petitioner and they be further directed to hand over the posession of the same to the petitioner.
Any other appropriate order or direction may kindly be passed.
3. Original plaintiff Poonya Ram ( now deceased and represented by his legal representatives non-petitioners) filed a suit for possession in respect of disputed property against original defendant Durga Prasad, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 6th September, 1983 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.2, Alwar. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff preferred regular Appeal No. 4/84 which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred second appeal No. 20/88 before this Court, along with stay petition. This Court passed stay order dated 10th August, 1989, directing the respondents in the Second Appeal to maintaian status quo in respect of the property in dispute.
4. Subsequently, the applicant ( respondent in the second appeal) filed an application for modification of the stay order dated 20th August, 1989 contending that the plaintiffs ( appellants in second appeal) want to dispossess the applicant from the property in dispute forcibly and they intend to sell the property in dispute, therefore, appellants be restraiend from selling the property in dispute during pendency of the appeal and also to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute.
5. This Court vide order dated 3rd November, 1992 modified the earlier order dated 10th August, 1989 and directed both the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of property in dispute, during pendency of the appeal. The order dated 3.11.1992 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 20/1988 reads as under :
The property which is the subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, is admittedly in the possession of the respondent- defendant, who is the applicant in this application. On an application having been made and on the admission of the learned counsel for the applicant, an order dated 10th August 1989 was passed by N.C. Sharma J., directing the applicant to maintain the status- quo in respect of the property in dispute. The applicant has moved this application for modification of the above said order passed by N.C. Sharma J.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
During the course of arguments, Shri Ranjan, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the appellants- plaintiffs want to dispossess the applicant from the property in dispute forcibly, and also that the appellants intend to sell the property in dispute and has prayed that the appellants should be restrained from selling the property in dispute, during the pendency of the appeal and also to maintain the status- quo in respect of the possession thereof. Both these prayers have been opposed by Shri Dilip Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
As noted above, it is the admitted case of the parties that the applicant has been in possession of the property in dispute, and for that reason only, the appellants had filed a suit for possession against the applicant. There is no reason as to why only the applicant should maintain the status- quo , whereas the appellants should be allowed to disturb the status quo and to take forcible possession of the property in dispute .... ... it to someone else, its purchaser would be bound by the result of these proceedings and would acquire only such right in the property as the applicant himself has therein. Consequently, there is no necessity of passing any order restraining the appellants form transferrring the property during the pendency of the appeal.
In view of the above discussion, I modify the order dated 10th August, 1989 to the extent that both the parties are directed to maintain the status- quo in respect of the roperty in dispute, during the pendency of the appeal.
The stay application stands disposed of accordingoy.
6. Present contempt petition was preferred by the petitioner ( originally defendant in the suit and respondnet in the second appeal), wherein it has been pleaded that on 1st December, 1993 when the petitioner went to his property, he saw that the boundary wall had been demolished and his locks and key had been removed and non-petitioners No.1 and 2 were there. He inquired from them that how they were there, as there was status quo order by the Hon'ble Court and these portions were in his possession under his lock and key. They said that they had taken possession and demolished the boundary wall on 23rd November, 1993, a day previous to the marriage to the marriage in their house and scolded the petitioner that they are not bothered about the stay order. They have taken possession and the petitioner may do whatever he liked. The possession of the room is with them and they would not hand over the same to the petitioner even if the court directs them. The petitioner has thus, pleaded that non-petitioners have disobeyed the order of this Court dated 3rd November, 1992 by taking possession of the property in dispute.
7. A notice to show cause was given to the non-petitioners and they have filed their written reply on 3rd May, 1994. In para Nos. 5 and 6 of their reply to contempt petition, the non-petitioners submitted that they never flouted the order of this court dated 3rd November 1992. Whole story had been concocted to exert pressure on the non-petitioners, so that they may eschew their legal rights over the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner. It was specifically mentioned that non-petitioners never demolished the boundary wall and broke open the locks. They have not taken possession of the suit property. The second appeal pending before this Court was transferred to the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Learned counsel for the parties admitted that the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs ( present non-petitioners) has been dismissed vide judgment dated August 17, 2010.
8. This Court vide a detailed order dated 10.11.2010 directed the SHO to submit report about the possession of the parties and the compliance report. The operative portion of the order reads as under :
14. In these circumstances, it has become necessary to pass an appropriate order for restoration of possession of the petitioner, if the non-petitioners have dispossesed him, as per the report of SHO, Kotwali, Alwar.
15. Consequently, it is directed that non-petitioners will not put any hindrance in the possession of petitioner Jagdish Prasad Avasthi over the property in dispute. If non-petitioners/ contemners are found in possession over the property in dispute, then the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar is directed to restore the possession of the petitioner by dispossessing the non-petitioners from the property in dispute.
16. The SHO is directed to submit report about the possession of the parties and the compliance report as per above directions, within a period of two weeks from today.
17. A copy of this order will be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar.
18. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar for compliance.
Put up for further orders and compliance report on 25th November, 2010.
9. It may also be mentioned that application No. 24151 dated 18.11.2010 was filed by Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Advocate for modification of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by this Court. By the order dated 2.5.2011 this court rejected the application No. 24151 dated 18.11.2010. The order dated 2.5.2011 reads as under :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
This matter is listed for arguments on the application No. 24151 dated 18.11.2010 filed by Mr. Raghunanandan Sharma, Advocate for modification of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by this court . I have gone through the contents of the application and in my view at this stage it is not fair to make any comments on the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by this court. The application for modification of the order dated 10.11.2010 is rejected.
Looking to the facts of this case the matter may be listed for final arguments on 9.5.2011.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 3.11.1992 the predecessor in title of the petitioner was in possession of the suit property except one Kotha which had been given to late Shri Poonya Ram earlier. After the purchase of the property had his lock and key on the suit property except one Kotha and the boundary wall was there. The petitioner lives in other house and the entire suit property except one Kotha was in lock and key of the petitioner and previous to him in the lock and key of the predecesor in title. On 1.12.93 when the petitioner went to his property, he saw that the boundary wall had been demolished and his locks and key had been removed and the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 were there. He inquired from them that how they were there, as there was status quo order by the Hon'ble Court and these portions were in his possession under his lock and key. They said that they had taken possession and demolished the boundary wall on 23.11.93, a day previous to the marriage in their house and scolded the petitioner that they are not bothered about the stay order. They have taken possession and the petitioner may do whatever he liked. The possession of the room is with them and they would not hand over the same to the petitioner even if court directs them. It is further contended that the petitioner further inquired from Prasadi Lal Yadav, the neighbour in the suit property. He told the petitioner that non petitioners No.1 and 2 and their relation non-petitioner No.3 and their children had demolished the boundary wall and had taken the possession of the suit property after breaking open the locks. The counsel has argued that the non-petitioners have thus disobeyed the order of this Court passed on 3.11.92 of maintaining the status quo. In these circumstances the learned counsel has argued that the non- petitioners knowingly have disobeyed the order of this Court. The Court had ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, but inspite of this the non-petitioners disturbed the status quo taking advantage of absence of the petitioner from the suit property and took possession on 23.11.93 by demolishing the boundary wall and breaaking open the locks and removing the goods including Kutti machine. The non-petitioners have knowingly disobeyed the order of this Court and have shown scant respect to the order of this Court and are thus guilty of committing contempt of court and are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. The non-petitioiners have knowingly disobeyed the order of this Court and took possession of the property inspite of the order of this Court maintaining status quo and thus liable for punishment.
11. It may be mentioned that Ramjilal non-petitioner No.1 in the contempt petition filed reply on 3.5.94 and stated that he was not at the place of occurrence on 23.11.93 because he was on duty as Sueprvisor for the training programme of vote counting in the Legislative Assembly Elections, 1993 at Happy School Alwar's Auditorium. The reply was filed by the counsel for the non-petitioners for all the non-petitioners and it was stated the non-peittioners never demolished the boundary walls and broke open the locks. They have not taken possession of the suit property. In reply to para 9 of the contempt it has been stated by the non-petitioners as under :
9. That the contents of this para are not admitted. The male non-petitioners are govt. servants working on responsible posts. They are law abiding citizen and have highest regard for the courts and their orders.
12. It may also be mentioned that in compliance to the order of this court dated 10.11.2010, the SHO, Police Station Kotwali on 26.11.2010 submitted the compliance report. The extract portion of the report is as under :
3. ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ? ????? ??? ????? ?????????-3 ???
4. ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? 4 ?? ????????? ?? ?
5. ??? ?? ??????????? ????????? ????? ???0 ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ??????? 8660 ?????? 25.11.2010 ????, ????? ????? ????????? 5 ?? ????????? ???
6. ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?????? 23.11.2010 ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? 6 ?? ????????? ???
7. ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? 7 ?? ????????? ???
??: ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 10.11.2010 ?? 25.11.2010 ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ???
13. On 28.2.2011 non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Ram Pyari wife of Ramjilal Meena, non-petitioner No.1 in the contempt petition filed reply to the contempt petition raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the contempt petition. It was stated that the contempt proceedings are related to an interim order passed in the appeal and the appeal has already been dismissed vide judgment dated 17.8.2010. Therefore, the interim order was merged with the final decision of the appeal, as such after passing of final decision the contempt proceeding on interim order is not maintainable. It was pointed out that whole allegations of disobedience of Court order is only against Ramjilal who has already been expired. Answering respondent was only involved being a wife of Ramjilal though he was not party in the suit or in an appeal, therefore contempt petition is not maintainable against the answering respondent. It was also mentioned that SLP was filed by the LRs. of Ramjilal and not by Ramjilal himself because he was died prior to filing of the SLP. The decree passed by the High Court merged with the order in SLP. It was further submitted that SHO Police Station Kotwali Alwar was directed to restore the possession of suit property which was only one room. In pursuance of Court order, SHO police Station Kotwali Alwar restore the possession of one room and made fully compliance of Court order because there was any order of any court of law which directed to give the possession of other then suit property. If the defendant would having any dispute regarding the possession he would have to file cross objection in the suit of plaintiff or he would have filed separate suit for possession, but it is clear from the material on record that defendant neither filed cross objection nor filed separate suit for alleged portion of property which is clearly indicates that he was only in possession of one room for which petitioner file the suit. And compliance of court order of possession of one room has already been given. It is clear that the answering respondent did not commit any contempt of court order dated 3.11.1992. It was further stated in the reply that contempt petition was filed against Ramjilal and answering respondent in the year 1993 but no allegations were alleged against the answering respondent in the contempt petition, therefore no contempt petition maitnainble against the answering respondent, so far as Ramjilal is concenred, he has already been died therefore the contempt is liable to be dismissed as become infructuous.
14. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the non-petitioners on 1.4.2011. In the rejoinder, it has been stated by the petitioner that the original plaintiff Poonia Ram wrongly filed the suit. The suit property did not belong to him, which has now been settled by the Hon'ble Suspreme Court of India. It is stated that the answering respondnets have wrongly averred that possession of two rooms cannot be given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the original plaintiff has clearly stated in his statement that the yellow portion shown in the map was in possession of the original defendant the predecessor in title of the petitioner from which the petitioner was dispossessed and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the possession of the portion from which he was dispossessed during the operation of the stay order and as such it is wrong to say that the petitioner cannot be put into possession for the portion from which he was dispossessed. The contempt petition is very much maintainable and survives after the decision of the main appeal if the contempt petition has not been decided earlier. The proceeding in contempt is independent proceeding to proceedings of civil suit, once cognizance is taken by court for contempt of its order the proceedings remain between court and contemnor. The petitioner stated in the rejoinder that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the property in dispute did not belonging to the original plaintiff. The real owner of property in dispute was respondent Durga Prasad Meena as it has been consistently held by all the courts till Apex court. It is stated that the petitioner is claiming the possession of the property from which he was dispossessed in violation of stay order dated 3.11.1992. The petitioner is not claiming any thing more than the possession, which was admitted by the original plaintiff Pooniya Ram in his statement and from which the petitioner was disposed in violation of the order dated 3.11.1992. The property in dispute was the entire house property. The issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the original defendant the predecessor in title of the petitioner holding that Durga Prasad was the real owner which has been maintained up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was submitted that both the surviving contemnors are guilty of committing contempt of court and they cannot rescue themselves on the plea of death of Ramji Lal Meena. The contemnors non-petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute from which the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed in violation of the stay order dated 3.11.1992 and which is clearly borne out by the police report dated 5.8.99.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the material on record.
16. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC and the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC reads as under:
2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto
17. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under:
2. (a) contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
Section 12. Punishment for contempt of court
2. Punishment for contempt of court.(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both :
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation.An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),
(a) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) director, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
For Disclaimer, see under Help Section 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court :
Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall
(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged ;
(b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge ;
(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge ; and
(d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the Court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case.
(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify :
Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money as the Court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the Court :
Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.
18. It is also necessary to have a look at the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2010) 12 SCC 770. In Para 17 it has been held as under :
17. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this Court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance with the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly postulates and emphasises that the ingredient of wilful disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature.
19. It is an admitted fact that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is an independent matter. The contempt petition is related to the compliance of the order dated 3.11.1992 of this court and punishing the non-petitioners for committing the contempt of court. The civil suit No. 110/83 (283/73) was filed by Poonyaram son of Nondaram by caste Meena against Durgaprasad son of Ram Kripal. In the civil suit following prayer was made by Poonyaram :
?? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ( ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ) ????????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????
20. The suit was dismissed by the order dated 6.9.1983. The order of the trial court reads as under :
??????????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?????
21. Plaintiff Poonyaram filed appeal No. 4 of 1984 which was decided by the District Judge No.1 Alwar vide order dated December 5, 1987. The order of the ADJ reads as under :
??: ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??
22. Thereafter the plaintiff filed second appeal before this Court, which was registered as S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.20/1988. As noted above this court passed adinterim order on 10..8.1989 which was subsequently modified by this court on 3.11.1992 directing both the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the property in dispute, dispute during the pendency of the appeal. S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.20/1988 was transferred to the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court decided the RSN No. 85/1995 vide judgment dated 17.8.2010. The concluding part of the judgment of the Delhi High Court reads as under :
These are concurrent findings of fact which had been endorsed by both the courts below. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of perversity and the Courts below had based their conclusion on no evidence or in the alternative by ignoring material evidence or further by endorsing findings which are contrary to the documents on record is not made out. The findings cannot in any manner be held to be perverse. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal as also the pending applications are dismissed.
23. Earlier to it on June 11, 1999, the Delhi High Court passed the interim order as under :
Issue notice of this petition to the appellants returnable for 20.7.1999. In the meanwhile the Local Polcie is directed to ensure compliance of the order dated November 3, 1992 in respect of the suit property.
24. Again on July 20, 1999, the Delhi High Court passed the following order :
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of theview that the report from the Police Officer concerned would give the court a complete picture, and, therefore, I direct the SHO, Kotwali, Alwar, Rajasthan submit a report with reference to the action taken by him to comply with the order passed by this court on the 11th of June, 1999. The report shall be submitted within two weeks from today.
The Registry shall communicate the order to the SHO Kotwali Alwar, Rajasthan by fax.
The respondent, in CM, shall file the counter within two weeks.
Post the matter on 18th August, 1999 Dasti to both the parties.
25. In compliance to the order of the Delhi High Court, the SHO Police Station Kotwali Alwar vide his communication dated 5.8.99 informed the Registrar, Delhi High Court as under ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? 14912 ?????? 29.7.99 ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ? ??????? ?????? ?? 8-8, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? 8-8 ??,?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ? 15x8 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? 12.6.99 ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??0 ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????"
26. On 1.4.2011 the petitioner also filed a civil misc. application under section 345 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for initiation of criminal proceedings against contemner respondent Smt. Rampyari Meena and for her prosecution for offence under section 177 IPC for furnishing false information to Hon'ble Court in her application dated 18.12.2010.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the cases of Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction and another (AIR 1996 SC 715) and Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. (2004) 7 SCC 261.
28. Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners has submitted written arguments stating that father-in-law of non-applicant contemnor filed a suit for eviction for one room. The defendant did not file any counter claim or suit for possession of entire property. In the second appeal this Court passed order on 3.11.1992 directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute during pendency of appeal. The contemnor No.1 Ramjilal has already been died and present non-applicant contemnor was not the parties to the suit, therefore the above contempt petition is not maintainable against the non-applicant Smt. Ram Pyari. In this regard there is a judgment of the High Court of Madras Naseema Parveen and others vs. A .Zubeidha Bee AIR 2010 Madras 57. It was submitted that the contempt petition is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the petitioner wants to execute the decree by way of this contempt petition, though the compliance has already been made of the order dated 3.11.1992 and the compliance report was submitted by the SHO Kotwali Alwar according to suit. In this regard there are judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Day and others vs. Bhagybati Pramanik and others (2000) 4 SCC 400 and Hori Lal vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 2010 MP 144).
29. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner is pending since 9.11.1993 for the compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.11.1992 directing the parties to maintain status. It is also an admitted fact that the Second Appeal filed by the appellant was transferred to the Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court also passed adinterim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. As mentioned above it is also clear that the SHO Kotwali by his communication dated 5.8.99 that the non-petitioner Ramjilal has not complied with the order of the Delhi High Court dated 12.6.99 and made encroachment over the property in dispute. The order of the Delhi High Court dated June 11, 1999 was based on the order of this Court dated 3.11.1992 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Thus it is clear that the non-petitioners have not complied with the directions of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992 maintaining status quo as it was existing on 3.11.1992. In these circumstances it is not an execution of the decree of the order passed by the trial court or of the appellate court, but it is the question of maintaining status quo as it was existing on 3.11.1992 when the order of this court was passed. The act of the non-petitioners is disobedience of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992. It is also made clear that the non-petitioner No.1 Ramjilal died during the pendency of the contempt petition and whatever rights he was holding on that date were available to the legal heirs. Smt. Ram Pyari, who is wife of the non-petitioner Ramjilal and non-petitioner No.2 in the instant petition is equally responsible for the non-compliance and disobedience of the order of this court. The non-petitioners are duty bound to comply with the order dated 3.11.1992. For disobedience and non- compliance of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992 the non-petitioners 2 and 3 deserve to be punished. The petitioner is entitled to get compliance of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992.
30. For these reasons this contempt petition and the application No. 10428 dated 1.4.2011 are disposed of with the following directions :
1) The contemners non-petitioners 2 and 3 are not present today and they are directed to be present before this court on May 20, 2011 for hearing them on the quantum of sentence for non- compliance and disobedience of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992.
2) The counsel for the contemners are directed to inform the contemners for appearance before this court on 20.5.2011. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to inform the contemners through the SHO Police Station Sadar Alwar that they shall remain present before this court on 20.5.2011.
3) It is further directed that the non-petitioners will not put any hindrance in the possession of petitioner Jagdish Prasad Avasthi over the property in dispute. If non-petitioners/ contemners are found in possession over the property in dispute, then the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar is directed to restore the possession of the petitioner by dispossessing the non-petitioners from the property in dispute. The SHO is directed to submit compliance report, within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of this order will be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar for compliance.
31. Put up on 20.5.2011 for hearing to the contemners for passing appropriate orders on the quantum of sentence for the non-compliance and disobedience of the order of this court dated 3.11.1992.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA )J. OPPareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(O P Pareek) PS-cum JW