Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Singh vs Nachhattar Singh on 10 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR689
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring 31 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Munawan, Teshil Zira, along with his brother and sisters and he is holding a General Power of Attorney on their behalf. Nachhattar Singh, respondent No. 1 was the tenant over the aforesaid land. Petitioner, the brother and sisters filed an ejectment petition on Form 'L' in which the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Zira, vide his order date 5.5.1986 ordered ejectment of the said respondent from the land in question. Appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector by order date 12.6.1987. Revision filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 12.8.1991. Still not satisfied,respondent No. 1 filed another revision under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab which also met with the same fate on 11.11.1993. Having lost in the proceedings before the Revenue authorities, respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit 526-1 of 7.12.1993 in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his co-sharers from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in dispute except in due course of law. On 2.3.1994, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in that suit) made a statement on oath in the Court that he is cultivating the land which he had taken on lease from Amarjeet Singh. He further stated that the Financial Commissioner had decided the case against him and that he would hand over the possession after harvesting that crop. In view of the statements of the parties made on 2.3.1994 in the said suit, the suit was dismissed with the direction that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in the contempt petition) would deliver peaceful possession of the suit land to the defendants by 30.4.1994. It is worthwhile to mention here that the defendants in the said suit were Amarjit Singh, petitioner here and his brother Balwinder Singh. Statement made by respondent No. 1 on 2.3.1994 and the order passed by the trial Court on the same date are available on the record as Annexure P-6 and P-7, respectively.
2. As noticed above, possession of the suit land was to be delivered by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and his brother by 10.4.1994 as directed by the trial Court, but since it was not done, the petitioner filed execution proceedings, got issued a warrant of possession in pursuance of which the Field Kanungo and the Patwari Halqa vide report Roznamcha No. 239, dated 14.5.1994 delivered symbolic possession of the land to the petitioner and actual physical possession could not be delivered as respondent No. 1 had already sown crop on the land.
3. Respondent No. 2, Rajwant Singh who is, admittedly, the son of respondent No. 1. allegedly having full knowledge of the proceedings and orders passed as noticed above, got the Khasra girdawaris in respect of the land in question changed from the name of his father to his own name in connivance with the revenue officials. Not only this, respondent No. 2 on the strength of the revenue entries and with the knowledge and consultation of respondent No. 1, filed a suit against the latter, petitioner and his other co-sharers, for permanent injunction, restraining them from forcibly dispossessing him from the said land. This is how, being dismayed by the mala fide moves initiated by the respondents of creating hurdles in the way of the petitioner to get possession of the suit land, he has filed the present contempt petition for punishing the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. In response to notice having been issued, the respondents filed their joint reply. The stand taken by the respondents is that the statement made by respondent No. 1 to 2.3.1994 in his suit is not signed by his advocate and it cannot be read as a compromise in terms of provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A candid stand has been taken by respondent No. 1 that he was not keeping good health and was not in a fit and proper state of mind to take appropriate decision in the matter. In support of this, he placed on record a Medical Certificate dated 11.4.1994, copy Annexure R-l. Allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 2, son of respondent No. 1 had full knowledge of the litigation going on between the parties and the orders passed therein was stoutly denied.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are guilty of perpetuating the contempt of the court for wilfully, fraudulently and with deliberate dishonesty flouting the orders of the court and thus, they are liable to be punished suitably under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and his co-sharers are entitled to get possession of the disputed land and the same may be ordered to be delivered to them.
6. Though it is quite unnecessary for the proper determination of the question of contempt of court's order, to go into the previous history of the matters which led to the passing of the order, yet certain facts need to be noticed to throw light on 'the conduct of the respondents. From a careful perusal of the pleadings and documents brought on the record by the respective parties, it clearly comes out that the respondents have been thwarting every attempt made by the petitioner to get possession of the land in question. While respondent No. 1 with a clear intention to retain possession of the land kept dragging the petitioner into various litigations and ultimately having lost in all, made a statement before the civil court on 2.3.1994 to hand over the possession, but in fact did not do so, at the same time respondent No. 2 manipulated the revenue record with the active connivance of his father, respondent No. 1 and filed a suit against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction restraining them from forcibly dispossessing him from the said land. Respondent No. 2 however, did not succeed in getting injunction prayed for in his favour and his application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in his suit was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 20.5.1994. During the course of hearing it was not disputed that appeal against the order dated 20.5.1994 has also been dismissed. The stay granted by the Collector vide order dated 30.6.1994 was also vacated on a later date on the application moved by the petitioner in that behalf.
7. The fate of this petition hinges on the statement of respondent No. 1. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the statement as made, "KEY MAIN JAMIN KASHT KARDA HAN. MAIN YEH AMARJIT TON LAI HAI. PATTE TE LAI HAI MERE KIALAF FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER NEY BARKHILAF DA HUKAM KAR DITA HAI. MAIN ISS FASAL TON BADD KABZA DE DEW AN GA." This statement which has been made in the Court on 2.3.1994 on solemn affirmation and is thumb-marked, when translated into English would read thus:
"I am cultivating the land. I have taken this land on lease from Amarjit. The Financial Commissioner has decided against me. I will deliver possession after this crop."
8. A minute study of the statement of respondent No. 1 made in the trial Court on 2.3.1994, as reproduced above, would go to show that it is nothing but an undertaking given before the court in pending proceedings on the faith of which the court sanctioned a course of action, viz. dismissed the suit with the direction to respon- dent No. 1 to deliver possession of the suit land to the petitioner and another, by 30.4.1994. In support of the view that statement made by a party before the court in pending proceedings can be taken as an undertaking to the court, the wilful breach of which is misconduct amounting to civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and is liable to be visited by the same punishment as for breach of an injunction, reliance can be placed on Saleemuddin v. Sharzuddin, A.I.R. 1980 Delhi 39. There are two ways of giving an undertaking, (1) that a person tiles an application or affidavit clearly setting out the undertaking or (2) by a clear or express oral undertaking given by the contemner and incorporated by the Court in its order. In the present case, respondent No. 1 had clearly undertaken by making a statement on oath in the Court on 2.3.1994 that he would hand over the possession after harvesting the crop standing on the land at that time. Having regard to the statement, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit with a direction to the plaintiff to deliver peaceful possession of the suit land to the defendants by 30.4.1994. However, respondent No. 1 did not comply with the order or the court and wilfully disobeyed the same by not handing over the possession. Possession has not been delivered till date. Respondent No. 1 having full knowledge of the order dated 2.3.1994 of the trail Court and with a view to forestall the direction abetted with respondent No. 2, his son, in the commission of contempt of court. Respondent No. 1 made the statement in Court on 2.3.1994 with a view to forestall his impending dispossession and harvested the crop standing on the land. Had he not made the statement, he would have been dispossessed in execution of the order of ejectment passed against him by the revenue authorities. At no stage of the proceedings pending before the revenue authorities or the civil court, respondent No. 1 took the stand that he was not in possession of the land in question. Rather his statement goes to show that he was in possession. With a view to save possession after 30.4.1994, he surrendered possession of the land in favour of his son, who is respondent No. 2, with a view to protect possession and forestall the execution of the order of ejectment started another bout of litigation wherein he claimed himself to be a tenant under the landowner for a period of over four years. This on the part of the respondents was the clearest device to retain possession and to by-pass the order dated 2.3.1994 of the civil court. This in my view is human ingenuity to devise ways and means for prejudicing the rights of the other party in the matter of getting relief.
9. It is indeed somewhat difficult to lay down exhaustively what particular actions would or would not, in given circumstances, fall within the mischief of the law of contempt. Be that as it may, from the facts and circumstances as noticed above, it is clearly made out that both the respondents devised certain ways with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice and as a consequence thereof, possession has not been delivered to the petitioner till today despite a clear undertaking given to the court by respondent No. 1 that culminated into the order of the court passed on 2.3.1994. The statement is nothing but an undertaking to deliver possession. Even otherwise, there was a clear direction to deliver possession by 30.4.1994. The violation of the statement and the direction issued, which in the circumstances cannot but be treated as deliberate and willful, in my view clearly amounts to contempt. The respondents have, therefore, rendered themselves liable for contempt punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
10. In Banwari Lal Katyal v. Madan Lal Gupta and Anr., 1986(1) Rent Control Reporter 175, which clearly supports the above view, an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the tenant made a statement, "my appeal may be dismissed as not pressed if the respondent al- lows me six months' period to vacate the premises and deliver possession to him." This statement was accepted by the landlord and the appeal was consequently dismissed as compromised after noticing the statements made by the parties. The tenant did not take a plea in ejectment proceedings that his son-in-law was living with him. The son-in-law filed a suit as also an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to protect possession. Since the possession was not delivered, landlord filed a petition for punishing the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The statement made by the tenant before the Appellate Court was taken to be an undertaking to Court and he was held guilty and sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act. This is precisely what the position is in this case.
11. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement of respondent No. 1 made in the suit is not signed by the counsel representing him in the suit, does not advance his case. Respondent No. 1 who made the statement had thumb marked it before the Subordinate Judge and was signed by the latter. Again for what has been noticed above, it can safely be said that non-compliance of the statement amounts to contempt, Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents has no application to the facts of this case, for, it could not be shown that such a contempt is punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
12. Though the arguments in the case were concluded on 20.4.1995 and the) order was reserved, yet the petitioner and respondent No. 2 with their counsel appeared in Court on 28.4.1995. Respondent No. 2 is admittedly now in possession of the land in dispute. He was afforded an occasion to surrender possession of the land in question to the petitioner so that this fact may be considered as a litigating circumstance in the matter of award of punishment. Respondent No. 2, however, categorically stated that he was not prepared to surrender possession of the land at any cost. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act and are liable to be convicted accordingly.
13. Having regard to the circumstances as noticed above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In case of default in payment of fine, the defaulter shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The amount of fine, if realised, be paid to the petitioner to the extent of 50% by way of costs.
14. During the course of hearing of this petition, it was brought out that execution proceedings are pending in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Zira. A direction of issued to the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Zira to dispose of the said proceedings in accordance with law at a very early date so that the injustice done to the petitioner is mitigated.
15. On the oral request of learned counsel for the respondents, the sentence awarded to the respondents is suspended for a period of 15 days to enable them to file appeal, if any, if the appeal is not filed or the sentence is not suspended by the; Appellate Bench, the respondents shall surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur immediately on the expiry of 15 days from today, for serving the sentence.