Delhi High Court
Eastman Collaborater vs S.K. Mehta on 30 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IVAD(DELHI)995, 91(2001)DLT401, 2001(59)DRJ55
Author: Madan B. Lokur
Bench: Madan B. Lokur
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court.
I.A. No. 6741/99 has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure while I.A. No. 9660/2000 has been filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. The allegation of the defendant is that there has been a violation of the orders passed by this Court.
3. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to go through two orders passed by this Court.
4. In the order dated 20th July, 1999 the defendant was restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property till t hen next date. It was clarified that the tenants shall continue to pay rents to whom they were paying earlier whether it was being collected by the plaintiffs or the defendant.
5. The next order is dated 16th November, 1999. It appears that there was some dispute in respect of possession of the suit property. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and to identify the occupant of the premises. Parties were directed to maintain status quo in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner and the order dated 20th July, 1999.
6. The Local Commissioner visited the premises and submitted his report dated 22nd November, 1999. He identified the persons who were in the disputed premises that is O.P. Sirbha, Mrs. Raj Mehta and Mrs. Nirmala Sirbha. He took photographs of the premises also.
7. The controversy that has arisen at the moment is with regard to the meaning of the order of "status quo" that was passed on 16th November, 1999. According to learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, the status quo referred to the possession of the disputed premises while according to learned Counsel for the defendant the status quo was with reference to the nature of the property.
8. Another Local Commissioner was subsequently appointed on an application filed by the defendant to once again visit the suit premises and see whether any additional construction has been carried out. The Local Commissioner subsequently, did visit the suit premises and has given a description of the changes that have made in the suit premises. Therefore, if what learned Counsel for the defendant says is correct then there is a clear violation of the order passed by this Court.
9. However, I am of the view that the dispute between the parties is with regard to possession of the suit premises and it was in this context that the Court had passed an order dated 16th November, 1999 directing the Local Commissioner to visit the disputed premises and to identify the occupants of the disputed premises. The Court did not intend that the suit property will remain as it is. What this Court desired to know from the Local Commissioner was as to who is in possession of the suit premises and thereafter status quo was to be maintained in this regard, that is, in regard to possession.
10. Therefore, I am of the view that learned Counsel for the defendant is not correct in his contention that no changes could be made in the suit premises.
11. Consequently, no case of contempt has been made out.
12. From the documents on record, it is clear that possession of the suit premises is with the plaintiffs. They will continue to keep possession of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. They will not make any structural changes in the suit premises nor will they create any third party interest in the suit premises.
13. The defendant is also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. The defendant will not interfere with the possession of the suit property.
14. Accordingly, both the applications stand disposed of.
I.A. No. 3198/2001:
This application has become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous. Suit No. 1547/99:
List the matter before the Joint Registrar on 25th July, 2001 for admission/denial of documents.
15. I.As. disposed of.