Delhi High Court
Pamela Manmohan Singh vs Harnam Kaur (Deceased Through Legal ... on 24 March, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% D ATE OF DECISION : 24 TH M ARCH , 2017
+ CS(OS) 206/2016
PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Mahendra Rana, Adv.
Versus
HARNAM KAUR (DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES) & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for D-1 to 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CONT. CAS NO. 113/1993, CONT. CAS NO. 45/2007 & CONT. CAS NO.
46/2007
1. The plaintiff instituted this suit i) for declaration that the sale deeds,
all dated 6th December, 1988, executed by the defendant no.4 Sh.
K.V. Kohli in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 viz. Mrs. Harnam Kaur,
Mrs. Mahinder Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh, do not confer any title in
the defendants no.1 to 3 and the plaintiff is the owner of 2/3rd of,
property No.6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi; ii) in the
alternative for partition declaring that the plaintiff has 2/3rd share in
the property No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi and of
division of the property by metes and bounds and putting the plaintiff
in possession of her portion of the property.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 1 of 21
2. Vide order dated 14th March, 1990, while issuing summons of the
suit, the defendants no.1 to 3 were restrained from transferring,
alienating or parting with possession of property No.6-B, Jangpura,
Mathura Road, New Delhi, wholly or in part, in any manner and from
raising any further construction on the said property.
3. Contempt Case No.113/1993 has been filed averring disobedience by
the defendants no.1 to 3 of the aforesaid order dated 14th March, 1990.
It is pleaded i) that upon the defendants no.1 to 3, in disobedience of
the order dated 14th March, 1990, continuing with the construction,
the plaintiff applied for appointment of a Commissioner to visit the
premises and vide order dated 9th February, 1993, a Court
Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises and to report about
the construction in existence; ii) that the Court Commissioner visited
the property on 1st March, 1993 and filed a report dated 22nd April,
1993 detailing the existing construction in the property; iii) that
though as per the report of the Court Commissioner there was only
one entrance gate to the property but the defendants no.1 to 3 have
thereafter constructed an additional gate; iv) that the defendants no.1
to 3 have also demolished the entire outer block described in the
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 2 of 21
report of the Court Commissioner; v) that the defendants no.1 to 3
have constructed a room adjacent to the front wall where the
additional gate has been constructed; vi) that the defendants no.1 to 3
have converted the tin sheet roof of the main block to a cemented roof
and have also constructed doors, windows, ventilators and board
panels annexed with the roof; vii) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have
made other structural changes; and, viii) that the defendants no.1 to 3
have also parted with possession of the property to owners of
"BELTEK". Reliefs, of sealing of the property, punishing the
defendants no.1 to 3 and purging of the contempt have been sought.
4. Contempt Case No.45/2005 has been filed by the plaintiff averring i)
that the property No. 6-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi was
owned and possessed by the mother of the plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) R.
Kohli and was recorded with the Land & Development Office
(L&DO) in the name of Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli; ii) that during the
pendency of the suit, defendants no.1 to 3 in collusion and conspiracy
with the defendant no.4 have forged the plaintiff‟s signatures on two
affidavits dated 17th November, 1989 and 20th September,1991 to the
effect that the plaintiff has no objection if the suit property is mutated
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 3 of 21
in the name of defendants no.1 to 3 and to the Will dated 7 th March,
1986 of Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli and have submitted the same before the
L&DO; iii) that in this manner, the defendants have on 2nd January,
1992 obtained mutation of the property without disclosing to the
L&DO the true facts; iv) that on the application of the plaintiff vide
order dated 17th November, 1993, again a Local Commissioner was
appointed to inspect the property and to report on the construction
thereon; v) that the Court Commissioner has filed a report dated 17 th
November, 1993 to the effect that the construction was still going on
in the property; and, vi) that a comparison of the reports dated 22nd
April, 1993 and 17th November, 1993 of the Commissioners
appointed, reporting on the construction on the property, shows
violation of the order dated 14th March, 1990 by the defendants.
Relief, of sealing of the property and appointment of receiver of the
property has been sought.
5. Contempt Case No.46/2007 has been filed by the plaintiff averring i)
that at the time of institution of the suit, property No. 6-B, Jangpura,
Mathura Road, New Delhi was a vacant plot of land; ii) that the
defendants no.1 to 3 encroached upon the property by taking
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 4 of 21
possession thereof from Sh. Khairati Lal who had in Suit
No.1080/1979 of this Court undertaken to this Court to hand over
possession of the property to Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli; iii) that the
defendants no.1 to 3 have also abetted in the contempt of the
undertaking given by Sh. Khairati Lal to this Court; iv) that the
defendants no.1 to 3 after so encroaching upon the property filed suit
No.182/1986 against Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli for specific performance; in
the said suit there were orders dated 23rd January, 1986, 8th April,
1986 and 3rd October, 1986 of status quo; in contempt of these orders,
the defendants no.1 to 3 got executed sale deeds dated 6 th December,
1988 of the property in their favour from the defendant no.4 Mr. K.V.
Kohli and have thereafter withdrawn suit No.182/1986; v) that the
execution of the sale deed by the defendant no.4 in favour of
defendants no.1 to 3 was also in violation of order dated 4 th
November, 1988 of the High Court of Bombay in Suit No.2951/1987;
vi) that since the defendants no.1 to 3 continued to raise construction,
on application of the plaintiff another Court Commissioner was
appointed to visit the property and to report on the construction
thereon and who has also submitted a report dated 11th September,
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 5 of 21
1998 and which report also demonstrates violation of the order dated
14th March, 1990; and, vii) that the defendants no.1 to 3 had also
allowed a charitable dispensary to run from the property. Reliefs, of
sealing of the property and appointment of receiver thereof and
punishment of the defendants no.1 to 3 and of directing status quo
ante with respect to the property have been claimed.
6. All the aforesaid contempt cases were filed invoking provisions of
Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
7. Upon change in pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the suit was
transferred to the subordinate courts but these contempt cases were
retained in this Court.
8. Vide judgment dated 22nd May, 2008 titled Pamela Manmohan
Singh Vs. Harnam Kaur reported as 2008 (104) DRJ 221 in the
aforesaid contempt cases, the defendants no.2 and 3 were held to be in
contempt and punished with fine of Rs.2,000/- each; insofar as the
reliefs claimed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
CPC were concerned, it was observed that the same could be granted
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 6 of 21
by the Court which was seized of the suit which was then pending in
the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi. Accordingly,
liberty was granted to the plaintiff to seek relief under the provisions
of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC from the suit Court.
9. The suit, till 17th January, 2014, is found to be pending before the
Court of ADJ, Delhi.
10. Vide order dated 3rd December, 2014 in CM (Main) No.319/2013, the
suit was transferred from the Court of ADJ to this Court to be tried
along with other proceedings between the parties pending before this
Court. Till then, the ADJ, in accordance with the judgment dated 22nd
May, 2008 aforesaid had not decided the claim of the plaintiff for
relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC in the aforesaid
contempt cases.
11. Vide common order dated 1st August, 2016 in CS(OS) No.238/1989,
TEST.CAS. No.19/1997 and TEST. CAS. No.20/1997, no further
proceedings were ordered to be required in this suit and the outcome
of this suit was ordered to be governed by the outcome of those
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 7 of 21
proceedings in which consolidated issues were framed vide the said
order dated 1st August, 2016.
12. Only the claim of the plaintiff for relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2A
of the CPC in these contempt cases remains to be adjudicated. The
counsels were heard on 2nd December, 2016 on the said aspect and
orders reserved.
13. On 2nd December, 2016, I drew attention of the counsels to the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Bimal Chandra
Sen Vs. Kamla Mathur ILR (1982) II Delhi 407 to the effect that
with respect to violation of an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2
of the CPC only, Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC can be invoked
and not the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and which
judgment remained to be noticed in the judgment dated 22 nd May,
2008 aforesaid. It was further enquired from the counsel for the
plaintiff that once this Court has in exercise of jurisdiction under the
Contempt of Courts Act already punished the violation of the orders
in the suit, can the claim under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC
survive.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 8 of 21
14. The counsel for the plaintiff stated that notwithstanding the judgment
in Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen supra, since in this proceeding vide
judgment dated 22nd May, 2008 liberty has been given to the plaintiff,
the plaintiff is entitled to press the relief. The counsel for the plaintiff
also contended that since the defendants in their replies to Contempt
Case Nos. 45/2007 and 46/2007 have denied any contempt, the
entitlement of the plaintiff to relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of
the CPC should be put to trial. On request of the counsel for the
plaintiff, the counsel for the plaintiff was also permitted to file
judgments if any sought to be relied by him within one week.
15. The counsel for the plaintiff has on 23rd December, 2016 instead of
filing copies of the judgments filed written arguments referring to i)
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Jawahar Lal 69
(1997) DLT 591 (DB); ii) Shobha Shrestha Vs. Jay Randolph Vass
2009 (159) DLT 364; iii) Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Tamil Nadu
Olympic Association AIR 1991 Madras 323 (FB); iv) C. Elumalai
Vs. AGL Irudayaraj (2009) 4 SCC 213; v) Tayabbhai M.
Bagasarwall Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1997 SC
1240; vi) Satyabrata Biswas Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku (1994) 2 SCC
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 9 of 21
266; vii) Mohammad Idris Vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji (1984) 4
SCC 216; viii) Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun AIR 1986 Calcutta
220; ix) Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah AIR 1975 Madras
270 (FB); x) All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs.
Raghabendra Singh (2007) 11 SCC 374; xi) Patel Rajnikant
Dhulabhai Vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai (2008) 14 SCC 561;
xii) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P)
Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 622; xiii) National Highways Authority of India
Vs. You One-Maharia (JV) 169 (2010) DLT 222; xiv) Samee Khan
Vs. Bindu Khan AIR 1998 SC 2765; xv) The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah AIR 2007 SC 3100;
xvi) Kanjimull & Sons Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. 102
(2003) DLT 952; xvii) Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Telefornaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) 2016 (154) DRJ 71;
xviii) ATV Projects India Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 157
(2009) DLT 13; xix) Central Bank of India Vs. Current Transport
Finance (P) Ltd. ILR (198) 1 Delhi 233; xx) Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh (5) Vs. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374; xxi) Maharaj
Jagat Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh 1993 Supp (2) SCC
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 10 of 21
313; xxii) Raj Singh Gehlot Vs. Padiam Exports Pvt. Ltd. 174 (2010)
DLT 693 (DB); xxiii) Montreaus Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ascot Hotels
& Resorts Ltd. 174 (2010) DLT 439; xxiv) Arjan Singh Vs. Punit
Ahluwalia (2008) 8 SCC 348; xxv) Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Shaheed Memorial Society 158 (2009) DLT 610; and, xxvi)
Komal Nagpal Vs. Kamal Nagpal 206 (2014) DLT 745.
16. I have considered the controversy.
17. I may at the outset, with respect to the averments in Contempt Case
No.46/2007, state that this Court in exercise of powers under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC cannot adjudicate contempt or violation
of undertaking if any given by Sh. Khairati Lal in Suit No.1080/1979
of this Court or violation of order of status quo in Suit No.182/1996
of this Court or of the order dated 4th November, 1988 of the High
Court of Bombay in Suit No.2951/1987.
18. This Court in this proceeding, confined to Order XXXIX Rule 2A of
the CPC, is concerned only with the violation if any of the orders
made in this suit.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 11 of 21
19. This Court in judgment dated 22nd May, 2008 in Pamela Manmohan
Singh supra, on going through the report of the Local Commissioners
appointed and the evidence affidavits filed by the plaintiff and which
were not controverted by the defendants, found that the defendants
no.2&3 to have willfully disobeyed the order dated 14th March, 1990
by changing the nature of the property and by making changes in the
property when they were prohibited from doing by order dated 14 th
March, 1990 and imposed a fine as aforesaid of Rs.2,000/- on each of
the defendants no.2&3 and thereafter observed "insofar as the reliefs
claimed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are concerned,
the same can be granted by the Court which is now seized of suit
No.609/2009. Consequently, the petitioner is granted liberty to seek
the relief under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC from the
learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, who is seized of Suit
No.609/2006. The reliefs sought under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC shall
be dealt with expeditiously by the said transferee court. The record of
Suit No.609/2006 be sent back immediately."
20. The Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen supra
and which as aforesaid remained to be noticed in the judgment dated
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 12 of 21
22nd May, 2008 held i) the Court which passes injunction order has
the power to commit for contempt in case of breach - this is the
unquestioned rule since 1882; ii) the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
embodies the same Rule in Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC; iii) a
disobedience of an order of injunction is a contempt of Court; iv)
Sub-rule (1) of Order XXXIX Rule 2A confers on Court the power to
punish such contempt and further prescribes the punishment therefor;
v) Sub-rule (1) of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC provides for the
punishment not only of disobedience of the temporary injunction but
also of breach of any of the terms subject to which the injunction may
have been granted; while High Courts as Courts of record have
inherent jurisdiction to commit for contempt, other Courts have no
such power apart from the provisions of Rule 2A of the CPC; vi) the
High Court has power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts
Act but the exercise of that power is discretionary; vii) Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC is a far more adequate and satisfactory remedy in
such cases; viii) any detailed inquiry must be left to the Court which
has passed the order and which is fully acquainted with the subject
matter of its own order of temporary prohibitory injunction; ix) it is
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 13 of 21
clearly more desirable that the Court which made the order of
injunction should go into the facts and ascertain the truth of the
alleged disobedience and extent to which it is willful; x) if the order
of injunction is disobeyed by a person other than a party to the lis,
being agent or servant of the party to the lis, the Court granting the
injunction has undoubted powers to punish him; xi) a person who has
got an effective alternative remedy of the nature specified under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC should not be permitted to skip
over that remedy and take resort to initiate proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act - that would not be a proper exercise of
discretion on the part of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction
under the Contempt of Courts Act when such an effective and
alternative remedy is available to any person; xii) when special
procedure and special provision is contained in the Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC for taking action for the disobedience of an order
of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be
invoked; xiii) if such a course is encouraged, it is sure to throw open a
floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction; every decree-
holder can rush to the High Court stating that the decree passed by a
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 14 of 21
subordinate Court is not obeyed- this is not the purpose of the
Contempt of Courts Act; and, xiv) however under Order XXXIX Rule
2A of the CPC, action against a non-party to the lis cannot be taken
even if he has aided or abetted the violation of the interim order of
injunction and against whom no order of injunction was made.
21. From the aforesaid, it follows that the power of the Civil Court under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is in the nature of contempt of
court to the extent of violation of its own orders under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC
empowers the Civil Court to, in exercise of the said power, order the
property of the person guilty of disobedience or breach to be attached
and to order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not
exceeding three months. Sub-rule (2) of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
CPC empowers the Court to sell the attached property and out of the
proceeds, award such compensation as the Court thinks fit to the
injured party. Per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, civil
contempt also is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to
Rs.2,000/- or with both.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 15 of 21
22. It will thus be noticed that the power to punish, under Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC and under the Contempt of Courts Act are also
similar, with the length of imprisonment under the Contempt of
Courts Act being double the length of imprisonment in Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC.
23. This Court, though as per the judgment of the Division Bench in Dr.
Bimal Chandra Sen supra, in exercise of power under the Contempt
of Courts Act, was not entitled to punish for disobedience of the
interim injunction in the suit but nevertheless proceeded to do so and
imposed the punishment of fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the
defendants no.2&3. In my opinion in exercise of parallel powers
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, no further punishment can
be inflicted on the defendants. The same would amount to double
jeopardy i.e. punishing defendants for the same violation twice, once
under the Contempt of Courts Act and again under the Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC and which in my opinion is not permissible. I am
therefore of the further opinion that no further action can be taken
against the defendants no.2&3 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
CPC.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 16 of 21
24. As far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff are
concerned:
i) Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) supra cited on the
proposition that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of
the CPC cannot be ordered to remain pending till the disposal
of the suit and has no application to the present controversy;
ii) Shobha Shrestha supra has been cited on the proposition that i)
interim orders till vacated are binding and cannot be flouted
and if flouted are punishable even if had been subsequently
vacated; and, ii) that the power under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India or under the Contempt of Courts Act to
punish is inherent power and is not ousted by Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC - however this judgment is of a Single
Judge and again does not notice the Division Bench judgment
in Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen supra;
iii) Vidya Charan Shukla supra on the proposition i) that High
Court, besides remedy provided under Rule 2A of Order
XXXIX, can also exercise inherent powers under Article 215 of
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 17 of 21
the Constitution of India - however as aforesaid, the view of
the Division Bench of this Court is different from the view of
the Full Bench of the Madras High Court; and, ii) that in
exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC
and Article 215 of the Constitution of India status quo ante can
be ordered (this part is discussed hereunder);
iv) C. Elumalai supra also to the effect that in exercise of powers
under the Contempt of Courts Act and under Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the CPC status quo ante can be ordered (this part is
discussed hereunder)
v) Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwall supra, where on a finding under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC of disobedience of the
order, imprisonment was ordered and has no applicability to the
present controversy;
vi) Satyabrata Biswas, Mohammad Idris, National Highways
Authority of India, The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing
Board, Kanjimull & Sons, ATV Projects India Ltd., Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Capital Land Builders (Pvt.) Ltd.
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 18 of 21
supra where on facts violations were found and again have no
applicability to the present controversy;
vii) Sujit Pal, Century Flour Mills Ltd., All Bengal Excise
Licensees Association, Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Raj
Singh Gehlot , Montreaus Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Arjan Singh
supra on the proposition that status quo ante can be ordered in
exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC;
viii) Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai supra on finding violation of the
orders, imprisonment was ordered and has no application to the
present controversy;
ix) Samee Khan supra on the proposition that both attachment and
imprisonment can be ordered and which has no application to
the present controversy;
x) YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. supra on the proposition that non-
parties cannot be punished under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the
CPC;
xi) Central Bank of India supra which is on breach of undertaking
and has no application;
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 19 of 21
xii) Maharaj Jagat Singh supra where administrator was appointed
on violation being found and has no application;
xiii) Komal Nagpal supra on the proposition that apology is not
sufficient and which again has no application to the present
controversy.
25. As far as the claim of the plaintiff for restoration of status quo ante is
concerned, it is not as if this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
the Contempt of Courts Act could not have ordered so. The
judgments cited by the counsel for the plaintiff himself are an
authority therefor. However this Court in judgment dated 22 nd May,
2008 did not deem it proper and once it has not been so deemed
proper under the Contempt of Courts Act, no case for ordering the
same in exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC
is made out.
26. Moreover, as would be obvious from the order dated 1 st August, 2016
in all the proceedings between the parties and relating to the property,
it is otherwise not equitable that at this stage, construction of the
Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 20 of 21
property be directed to be restored to the condition in which it was as
reported in the first report of the Court Commissioner.
27. I, therefore hold that no further orders in exercise of powers under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC are required in the contempt
cases.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MARCH 24, 2017 „gsr‟ Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 21 of 21