Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohd. Wasim vs Eli Lilly Ranbaxy on 26 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR: JSCCcumASCJcumGJ
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
Case No. M 15A/10
1. Sh. Mohd. Wasim
S/o. Late Mohd. Salim
5, Gagan Vihar, Delhi ............ Plaintiff
Verses
1. Anand Mohan Gupta
2. Sh. Aditya Mohan Gupta
Both S/o. Sh. Mohan Gupata,
N8, Nabdharsha Society,
Neelachal, PO Birati, Calcutta.
3. Sh. Manoj Pant,
SHO Preet Vihar Police Station,
Delhi .........Defendants
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose off the the contempt application dated 25.03.2009, of the applicant/ plaintiff.
Suit No. M 15A/10 1/8 2
2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the suit bearing number 678/09 for permanent injunction. Interalia on the ground that petitioner/ plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the defendant, his agents, his legal heirs, assignees etc. may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property without following the due process of law. One application u/o. 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w. Section 151 CPC was also filed alongwith the suit. The Petitioner / plaintiff has stated that the Court had appointed Sh. H. S. Aneja, as Local Commissioner vide its order dated 19.03.2009, directing the Local Commissioner to visit the suit premises on 25.03.2009 at 4.00 p.m. to ascertain who is in possession of the suit property.
3. It is alleged by the plaintiff/ petitioner that he was sleeping with his family on 24.03.2009 at 10.00 pm. At that time, Sh. Manoj Pant, SHO, Preet Vihar entered in the house of the plaintiff alongwith the Police Force and arrested the plaintiff/ petitioner and put him in lockup alongwith his brother. Despite of the fact that, the plaintiff/ petitioner had handed over the copy of the order dated 19.03.2009 passed by the Court to the SHO. While the petitioner was in lockup, the police forcibly took the keys of the suit premises from the mother of the petitioner and handed over the keys to one Aditya Mohan Gupta, who is claiming himself the son of Sh. Anand Mohan Gupta. Suit No. M 15A/10 2/8 3 The defendants have removed the goods of the petitioner/ plaintiff from the suit property. The petitioner/ plaintiff has alleged that the defendant in collusion with Police through his son has disturbed the possession of the plaintiff before the visit of the Local Commissioner. The plaintiff/ petitioner has alleged that the act of the defendants inconvenience with the police is illegal and interference in the proceedings of the Court. Hence, he has filed the present petition.
4. The respondent no. 1 & 2 have filed the reply to the application and stated in the reply that application is vague and based upon the false allegations. The respondent no. 1 & 2 further alleged that the application is silent as to which order/ judgement has been disobeyed by the answering respondents. The respondent no. 1 & 2 further stated that they were in possession of the suit property. The respondent no. 1 & 2 have stated that at the night of 24.03.2009 being frustrated that the factual position about the possession shall be exposed to the Local Commissioner. The plaintiff took the law in his own hands by forcibly removing the lock of staircase and tried to trespass in the suit property (back side of the terrace of the first floor of the answering defendant). The respondent no. 1 & 2 further stated that in the presence of the Police officials, the plaintiff's representative replace the common lock. The entire incident was also recorded by the said attorney / son Suit No. M 15A/10 3/8 4 of the defendant in the mobile phone. The respondent no. 1 & 2 further denied that the Police forcibly took the keys of the suit premises from the mother of the plaintiff and handed over the same to Sh. Anand Mohan Gupta and removed all the goods of the plaintiff from the suit property. The respondent no. 1 & 2 stated that plaintiff's representative voluntarily opened the unilateral lock and no question arises for the removing of the goods of the plaintiff as there is no possession of the plaintiff over the terrace of the defendant. The respondent no. 1 & 2 prayed for the dismissal of the application.
5. Reply to the application also filed by the respondent no. 3, Sh. Manoj Pant, SHO Preet Vihar. The respondent no. 3 also stated that the present application has been filed with the malafide intention to harass the answering respondents. The respondent no. 3 stated that he was not party to the suit in which the order dated 19.03.2009 is stated to be passed. Neither any direction was issued to the answering respondent. It is stated by the respondent no. 3 that a complaint dated 24.03.2009 was received from respondent no. 1 against the petitioner/ plaintiff that the petitioner / plaintiff had changed the common lock of the property bearing no. 5, Gagan Vihar, Delhi, which was put on the common door of ground floor infront of common staircase. It is stated that a FIR was registered on the complaint of Suit No. M 15A/10 4/8 5 Anand Mohan Gupta. It is further stated by the respondent no. 3 that on 08.08.2009 a complaint was made by the Sujatulla Khan against the petitioner/ plaintiff. The petitioner, during the course of investigation on 08.08.2009 made a statement that he had purchased the front portion of the suit portion and also stated that back portion is owned by the Anand Mohan Gupta, who has give the same on rent to Sujatulla Khan, Advocate. The respondent no. 3 stated that he has not violated the order dated 19.03.2009. The respondent no. 3 has also prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. Rejoinder to the reply of respondent no. 1 & 2 as well as respondent no. 3 has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff in detail.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as of respondent no. 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2 to argue the petition. They are proceeded exparte. I have also perused the file. 8 As per the Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, the Contempt of Court is defined as Civil contempt and Criminal contempt. The Civil Contempt is willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. The Criminal Contempt has been defined u/s. 2 (c) under Suit No. M 15A/10 5/8 6 the Court of Contempt Act, which means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, of 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 lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes 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 manners. Admittedly, no order was passed by the Court and counsel for petitioner also submits that his petition does not falls within the ambit of Civil Contempt. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have committed the criminal contempt by interfering in the administration of justice, as stated in Section 2 (c) Sub Clause (iii), Contempt of Court Act. The question before this Court is whether defendants/ respondents have committed the criminal contempt. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner argue that the respondent no. 1 & 2 inconnivance with respondent no. 3 have disturbed the possession of the plaintiff before the visit of the Local Commissioner on 24.03.2009. In the light of the allegations made in the application, I am of the view that criminal contempt has not been committed by the respondents, firstly, as per the pleadings, the petitioner is claiming himself in possession of the suit property while simultaneously, the respondent no. 1 & 2 also claimed themselves in possession of the suit property. The question of possession was not establised and even my Ld. Suit No. M 15A/10 6/8 7 Predecessor has not satisfied with the contentions of the parties and appointed a Local Commissioner, to ascertain the possession of the parties, over the suit property. Moreover, by giving any observation by this Court on this petition will amounts to interfere in the jurisdiction of the higher Court, where the matter is pending for adjudication u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which has been filed by the petitioner. Suppose this Court give opinion that respondent committed the criminal contempt and petitioner was in possession of the suit property, it will tantamount to held that petitioner was dispossessed by the respondents, from the suit property. This observation will bearing with rights of the parties before the Court of Ld. ADJ.
9. Secondly, the fact of possession was not established, which was to be proved by the parties, rather same may be proved by the parties before the Court of Ld. ADJ. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the keys of the suit premises were forcibly taken by the Police from the mother of the petitioner and the same were handed over to the respondent no. 1 & 2, which amounts to Contempt of Court. In this regard, no finding is also required by this Court on this fact also because the matter is still subjudice before the Higher Court. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Satish Khosla V/s. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. , 1998 (44) DRJ (DB). This judgement is distinguishable on the facts. In Suit No. M 15A/10 7/8 8 that case one of the party has concealed the fact of filing of the first suit and filed subsequent suit to get exparte injunction. As the injunction was not granted in the earlier suit. The second judgement relied upon by the petitioner is also distinguishable on the facts. Same is not applicable in the present petition. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has been discharged in the FIR registered against him on the complaint of the respondent no. 1 & 2. The order of the Ld. MM is not having bearing in the present petition. The parameters for appreciating of evidence in criminal trial and civil trial are based on altogether different footings. So, I am of the considered view that at this stage, the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable and same is rejected.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 26.11.2012) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS
Suit No. M 15A/10 8/8