Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar And Anr vs Dda And Ors on 15 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID No. 02401C0443912010
M No. 21/10
Pawan Kumar and Anr. ..........Petitioner
Versus
DDA and Ors. ........Respondent
ORDER RESERVED ON: 07.05.2014
DATE OF ORDER: 15.07.2014
ORDER
1. The applicants are legal heirs of Late Sh. Manoj Kumar who was plaintiff no. 2 in Civil Suit No. 143/2009 (Old No. 47/2008) titled Pawan Kumar and Anr. Vs. DDA and others. Sh. Manoj Kumar had also filed a petition for revocation of probate granted in favour of Smt Tarawati. The said petition was registered as MPC No. 31/2008. In the said petition, the parties were referred to Mediation and they arrived at a settlement dated 31.01.2009. The details of the settlement are mentioned in the application. As per the settlement, Smt Tarawati had relinquished her share in the alternative plot to be alloted by DDA, in favour of her son Sh. Om M No. 21/10 Page 1 of 4 pages 2 Parkash. The suit no. 143/2009 was dismissed as compromised and withdrawn on 30.09.2009. It is stated in the application that as per the terms of the settlement Sh. Manoj Kumar and Pawan Kumar deposited their share of the amount in the joint bank account. From the said joint bank account, demand draft was got prepared for DDA. Though Smt Tarawati was left with no interest in the plot, the alleged contemners got the lease deed executed in her name and the deed was witnessed by Sh. Om Parkash. The plot was subsequently sold without obtaining permission of DDA and in violation of the condition of the lease that the plot could not be sold before expiry of a period of ten years. It is alleged that the non- applicants violated the terms of the settlement before the Mediation Cell and committed deliberate fraud which amounts to contempt of the Court.
2. I have considered the arguments of ld counsel for the applicants and I have perused the record.
3. The legal principle which emerges from the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that to constitute a contempt of court, M No. 21/10 Page 2 of 4 pages 3 the alleged contemner must have obtained some relief from the court on the basis of his/ her undertaking and thereafter there should be willful violation of the undertaking. The law has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1528. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 specially at page 1532 are important. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "Indeed, if we were to hold that non-compliance of a compromise decree or consent order amounts to contempt of court, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of decrees may not be resorted to at all. In fact, the reason why a breach of clear under-taking given to the court amounts to contempt of court is that the contemner by making a false representation to the Court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the court itself and thereby obstructs the course of justice and brings into disrepute the judicial institutior . The same can not, however, be said of a consent order or a compromise decree where the fraud, if any, is practised by the person concerned not M No. 21/10 Page 3 of 4 pages 4 on the court but on one of the parties. Thus, the offence committed by the person concerned is qua the party not qua the court, and, therefore, the very foundation for proceeding for contempt of court is completely absent in such cases".
4. In the present case, no undertaking was given to the Court. In fact the compromise was also not recorded in the suit and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the compromise arrived before the Mediation Cell on reference by the other Ld Court. The facts stated in the application do not make out a case of contempt of the Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The application is accordingly dismissed without making any observation qua the rights of the parties or the merit of the allegations in the application. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 15.07.2014 (RAJESH KUMAR SINGH)
Additional District Judge -05/Central
Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi
M No. 21/10 Page 4 of 4 pages