Delhi High Court
Gulshan Kumar Arora vs Ashwani Shukla & Ors on 2 July, 2012
Author: Manmohan Singh
Bench: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ I.A. No. 8603/2009 & I.A. No.7468/2012
in CS (OS) No.508 of 2005
% Judgment decided on : 02.07.2012
Gulshan Kumar Arora ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ravindra Narayan, Adv.
Versus
Ashwani Shukla & Ors ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv. with
Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. for D-1 along
with said defendant in person.
Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sandeep Puri, Adv. for applicant
Sikander Pal, in I.A. No.7468/2012.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. By this order I propose of dispose of the present two applications, viz. under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC filed by the plaintiff and under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC filed by applicant, Sikander Pal. The plaintiff filed the present suit, seeking relief of a decree of specific performance dated 4th May, 2004 and 29th July, 2004 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2 for sale of the terrace rights above the ground floor of the property bearing No. B-4/195, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the suit property).
2. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the entire terrace rights above the ground floor of the suit property from defendant No. 1 (Sh. Ashwani Shukla) to an extent of 50% in the undivided share in terrace rights and CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 1 of 17 for remaining 50% undivided share of the remaining 50% upon a joint understanding. Upon request of the defendants two separate agreements titled Advance Receipt Cum Agreement to Sell and Purchase was entered into on 4th May, 2004. These two agreements are jointly referred to as "sale agreements".
3. It is stated in the plaint that a perpetual lease deed was executed with respect of the suit property admeasuring about 200 sq yards in favour of Shri Harikrishan Hans Raj Sharma and he constructed a ground floor portion. After his death, he was succeeded by his wife, defendant No. 3 as his legal heir. Mutation was done vide letter No. F.4(3)71-L.A.B. dated 29th March, 1988 and defendant No. 3 became the sole owner of the said property.
4. The plaintiff states that defendant No. 3 has agreed to sell the entire terrace rights over the ground floor with right of easement and proportionate rights in the land underneath including unrestricted right. Defendant No. 3 executed a General Power of Attorney thereby constituting defendant No. 1 & 4 as her authorized representative to the extent of 50% of the undivided share. Further defendant No. 4 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 & 2 found it difficult to develop the said property and hence agreed to sell the said portion to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 37,50,000/-. Both defendants Nos. 1 & 2 requested for separate execution of agreement on same terms as they insisted that they could not receive equal money.
5. An Advance Receipt cum Agreement to Sell and Purchase for a consideration dated 4th May, 2004 was executed by defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 22.5 lacs out of which plaintiff paid Rs. 2.5. lacs vide cheque No. 387131 drawn on J&K Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch and the remaining 10 lac was paid by cash and the same was duly CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 2 of 17 acknowledged. Defendant No. 2 also agreed to sell his undivided share for a consideration of Rs.15 lac. But since the defendant No. 2 insisted on cash the agreement got concluded on 29th July, 2004 and an amount of Rs.5 lac was paid. After completion of the all the process of conversion had begun and plan from MCD was also granted. The plaintiff further states that soon after the plan was sanctioned, defendant No. 1 to 3 started to avoid to perform their part of the contractual obligation.
6. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale and purchase dated 4th May, 2004 and 29th July, 2004. The suit along with the interim applications being I.A. Nos.3006- 07/2005 was listed before the Court on 20th April, 2005 when the summons were issued in the suit and in the interim applications, the interim order for status-quo in terms of the physical condition, ownership and possession in respect of the terrace above the ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No.B-4/195, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was passed. The said interim order was subsequently modified by the Court vide order dated 1st February, 2007 qua defendant No.1, namely, Shri Ashwani Shukla. However, the injunction applications with regard to defendant No.2 were dismissed.
7. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal against the said order dated 1st February, 2007 being FAO(OS) No.379/2007 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th September, 2007 granted the interim injunction, staying the operation of the order of the Single Judge passed on 1st February, 2007 to the extent it vacated against defendant No.2 also. The said order of the Division Bench was confirmed by the order dated 18th August, 2010 in view of the statement made by defendant No.2 that he shall not create any third party interest in the suit property without prior leave of the Court when an appeal was also admitted.
CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 3 of 17Therefore, the plaintiff agreed before the Division Bench to delete defendant No.1 from the array of the parties in appeal and same was ultimately disposed of by order dated 2nd February, 2012 in view of the interim arrangement arrived at on 18.08.2010.
8. When the appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed an application, being I.A. No.8603/2009, wherein it was stated that the plaintiff came to know that despite of the injunction orders, defendant No.1, Ashwani Shukla, sold his ½ undivided share of the suit property to one Shri Sikander Pal in two parts vide two sale deeds dated 25th February, 2008. The allegation of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1, Ashwani Shukla has violated the interim order intentionally, knowingly and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and the said act of defendant No.1 is clearly in violation of the order dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and despite of the fact that the ex parte interim order dated 1st February, 2007 was confirmed against defendant No.1.
9. The prayer is made in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC, being I.A. No.8603/2009 that defendant No.1 be directed to restore the status of the suit property and he be also retained in civil imprisonment for three months.
10. The reply to this application was filed by defendant No.1 who seeks unconditional apology from this Court. It is alleged in the reply that it was not done intentionally, nor deliberately, but the same is done on account of bonafide mistake and belief and he may be pardoned.
11. During the course of the hearing of this application, the learned counsel for defendant No.1 had admitted before this Court that the suit property was sold despite of the interim orders passed by the Court on 20th April, 2005 and order dated 1st February, 2007 as well as CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 4 of 17 the order dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He admits on behalf of his client that defendant No.1 has committed the contempt, but it was not intentional and he be pardoned as he is seeking the unconditional apology. But at the same time, he informed the Court that his client (defendant No.1) has refused to deposit the amount received by him from Sikander Pal to whom the suit property was sold despite interim order. Defendant No.1 was present in Court when the said statement was made by him in Court.
12. The request of the learned counsel for defendant No.1 is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff who has argued that it is a deliberate attempt on the part of defendant No.1 to violate the order. In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai & Ors. vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2214, the defendant No.1 be sent to the civil imprisonment for three months and he should also be imposed with exemplary cost and the rights created after the order dated 1st February, 2007 in favour of Sikander Pal be declared null and void by virtue of two sale deeds dated 25th February, 2008 and both registered sale deeds be ordered to be cancelled, as the same have been executed and registered in violation of this Court's orders dated 1st February, 2007 and 24th September, 2007 passed by the Division Bench in connivance with each other, i.e., defendant No.1 and purchaser Sikander Pal.
13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also referred the following judgment, in support of his contentions:-
(i) Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and another vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others, reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 561, the relevant paras read as under:-
"71. Now, in the instant case, both the orders passed by this Court on 26-4-2004 and 10-1-2005, were explicitly CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 5 of 17 clear. The first order totally prohibited/restrained the respondent-contemnors from creating any interest whatsoever in the suit property. As held by us, in spite of the said order, interest had been created by the contemnors in the suit property. But even otherwise there is intentional disobedience and willful breach of the subsequent order dated 10-1-2005 inasmuch as transactions had been entered into without issuing notice to the petitioners. We have already held that they could not have been entered into by the respondents before issuance of notice to the petitioners. The respondents were clearly aware of the order. In fact, the action was sought to be defended and justified on the ground that the Court had not directed "prior" notice, and as such, non-issuance of notice before entering into sale transactions would not amount to disobedience of the order of the Court. We are unable to uphold the contention. In the circumstances it must be held that the disobedience of the order by the contemnors was willful, intentional and deliberate.
72. The question then is whether the case calls for imposition of punishment on the contemnors. The learned counsel for the contemnors submitted that in the affidavit- in-reply, the respondents have stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that they had committed contempt of Court, the Court may accept unconditional and unqualified apology and may discharge notice. The counsel submitted that the statutory provision itself enacts that no apology shall be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional [Explanation to Section 12(1)].
73. We must frankly admit our inability to agree with the learned counsel. In the light of what is stated above, we are convinced that the contemnors have intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of the Court. We are also convinced that the orders were clear, unambiguous and unequivocal having one and only one meaning. Willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the Apex Court of the country can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith. If it is so, the action calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice.CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 6 of 17
x x x x x
77. We are also satisfied that the so-called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret. It has been tendered as a "tactful move" when the contemnors are in the tight corner and with a view to ward off the Court. Acceptance of such apology in the case on hand would be allowing the contemnors to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Court. In our considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment will not meet the ends of justice.
78. Considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if we hold the respondent-contemnors guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 129 of the Constitution and order the respondent-contemnors to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two weeks i.e. fourteen days."
14. When the contempt application was being heard by this Court, suddenly during the course of hearing on 13th April, 2012, there was an appearance of counsel on behalf of Sikander Pal who purchased the suit property despite of status-quo orders by virtue of two sale deeds dated 25th February, 2008 from defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.27,50,000/-. His presence of the said counsel was recorded and the matter was adjourned to 24th April, 2012 for remaining argument. On 24th April, 2012 when the matter was listed for remaining arguments, the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, being I.A. No.7468/2012 was listed by applicant, Shri Sikander Pal for his impleadment as party in the above said suit.
CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 7 of 1715. It is stated in the application that the applicant came to know about the pendency of the suit, for the first time, on 11th April, 2012 when defendant No.1 informed the applicant about the contempt proceedings pertaining to the immovable property, a portion of which comprising 100 Sq. yards of first floor terrace (over and above the ground floor) belong to the applicant, who was also shocked to know about the basis of the present suit after going through the documents provided to him by defendant No.1.
16. It is further stated in the application that as a matter of fact, the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 appears to be a conspiracy by both the parties to the suit who are in collusion with each other, with a view to usurp the immovable property belonging to the applicant and defraud him of his hard earned money. The applicant has also lodged two FIRs which are registered against the plaintiff, mainly, on the ground that the applicant entered into the agreement to sell with defendant No.1 qua his share on 24th March, 2005 and Rs.1 lac was paid as earnest money. Further, an agreement to sell was entered between the parties on 28th December, 2007 for a total consideration of Rs.27 lac and a sum of Rs.10 lac was paid on 25th October, 2007, Rs.5 lac on 29th December, 2007 and further Rs.6 lac on 5th January, 2008. The dispute arose between the applicant and defendant No.1 and there was a round of litigation and finally, the suit was decreed vide order/judgment dated 13th January, 2008, thereby directing defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of his share in favour of the applicant and receive the balance sale consideration. In view of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court, the defendant No.1 herein executed two sale deeds for his share in the suit property in favour of the applicant registered on 25th February, 2008.
CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 8 of 1717. It is further stated that the truth of the matter is that the applicant herein possess legal rights in the immovable property, i.e. terrace right on the ground floor (first floor and above) which was validly and bonafidely purchased by the applicant by way of sale deeds executed by defendant No.l for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,50,000/-. It is also stated that the applicant is in physical possession of the suit property as from 25th February, 2008. Therefore, the agreement to sell in the present suit itself is forged and fabricated on the face of it. The prayer is made by the applicant in this application that he be impleaded as one of the defendants in the present suit in view of the sale deeds executed in his favour on 25th February, 2008.
18. In support of his submissions made in the application, the applicant has also filed the following documents:-
(i) Sale Deed dated 25.02.2008
(ii) Sale Deed dated 25.02.2008
(iii) Copy of Suit No.103/08
(iv) Conveyance Deed
(v) Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 24.03.2005
(vi) Agreement to Sale dated 28.12.2007
(vii) Receipt dated 25.10.2007
(viii) Receipt dated 29.12.2007
(ix) Receipt dated 05.01.2008
(x) Order dated 12.02.2008
(xi) Order dated 13.02.2008
(xii) Statement of Parties
(xiii) Application u/o XXIII, Rule 3 CPC
(xiv) MOU dated 13.12.2008.
19. I have also gone through the facts stated in the application filed by the applicant, Sikander Pal, as well as the documents placed on CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 9 of 17 record detailed above along with the list of documents dated 2nd May, 2012. It appears from the averment made in the application and said documents that defendant No.1, Ashwani Shukla after execution of the two alleged agreements dated 4th May, 2004 and 29th July, 2004 he entered into the agreement-cum-receipt dated 24th March, 2005 and 28th December, 2007 with him. It also appears from the said documents, pleadings and order passed by Civil Judge that defendant No.1 has not only violated the orders passed by two Single Judges of this Court on 20th April, 2005 and 1st February, 2007 and the order passed by the Division Bench on 24th September, 2007, but has made incorrect statement before the Civil Judge, Delhi on 13th February, 2008 when he settled the matter with the applicant, Sikander Pal.
20. The said statement of defendant No.1 recorded by the Civil Judge on 13th February, 2008 is reproduced here as under:-
"Suit No.103/08Statement of Sh. Ashwani Shukla S/o Sh. Hari Krishan Hans Raj Sharma, aged about 46 years, R/o B-4/195, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
On S.A. I have settled the dispute with the defendant amicably as per the terms and conditions of MOU Ex.C-1 which bears my signature at point A on each and every page. I have also moved application u/o 23 R.3 r/w section 151 CPC and the same is Ex.C-2 and bears my signatures at point A on each page and supporting affidavit bears my signatures at point A1 and A2. The suit was amicable settled before the Mediation Cell whereof the terms and conditions were incorporated in proceeding sheet dated 12.2.08 which is Ex.C-3 bears my signature at point A. The suit may kindly be decreed as per the settlement. I am giving the statement voluntarily and after understanding the consequences of the same.
RO&AC Sd/-
Civil Judge: Delhi
CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 10 of 17
13.02.2008"
21. It is also a matter of record that defendant No.1 has also settled the matter with Sikander Pal on the following terms and conditions:-
"1. It has been agreed between the parties that the main dispute between the parties was regarding sale of property bearing no.B-4/195, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi regarding terrace right of first floor.
2. That the parties have entered into the sale agreement on 23.12.04 for the sale of the above said premises for a sum of Rs.27.00 lacs and the sale transaction was to be completed by 20.02.2008.
3. That the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.one lac on 24.03.05 as booking amount. Thereafter he has further paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs on 25.10.2007, Rs.5.00 lacs 29.12.2007 and Rs.6.00 lacs on 05.01.2008 totalling to Rs.21.00 lacs.
4. That the main controversy between the parties was that the plaintiff wanted to forfeit a sum of Rs.1 lacs paid by the defendant on 24.03.05 because further sum of Rs.10.00 lacs was not paid by them as per terms of Receipt dated 23.12.04. On the other hand the defendant wanted that the sum of Rs.1.00 lac paid by them on 24.03.2005 is to be included in the cost of the said premises.
5. It has been agreed between the parties that the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.5.30 lacs in total in full and final settlement of dispute between the parties.
6. That after making payment of the said sum of Rs.05.30 lacs, the plaintiff shall execute the necessary documents transferring the ownership right of the terrace on the first floor of H.No.B-4/195, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and the said sum has been agreed to be paid by the defendant on or before 20.02.2008 by way of cheque/pay order."
22. In case the statement made by Sikander Pal in his application (I.A. No.7468/2012) is believed, then it is very clear that at the time of CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 11 of 17 that settlement on 13th February, 2008 before the Civil Judge, Delhi, despite of interim orders by the High Court, he settled the matter with the applicant and has also, allegedly, received consideration against the same very property which was under injunction. Not only that, even, the sale deeds were executed by defendant on 25th February, 2008. In the sale deed, he also made incorrect statement in para-8 to the effect that the suit property is free from all kinds of encumbrances, such as sale, mortgage, gift, lien, litigation, dispute, attachment in the decree of any Court etc. etc. and he is the owner of the suit property and absolute authority to sale the same in favour of Sikander Pal. The conduct of defendant No.1 clearly shows that he has not only violated the orders passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, but on the face of it, he made the incorrect statement before the Civil Judge, Delhi where he had compromised the matter with Sikander Pal knowingly, intentionally and deliberately after having full knowledge of interim orders. The said conduct of the defendant No.1 proves without any doubt that he has created the third party rights in violation of the orders. Hence, the non- conditional apology offered by him is merely in order to cover up the said violation. The same cannot be accepted, as even subsequent conduct of defendant No.1 shows that he was in continued violation of the orders of the Court.
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Sikander Pal states that the applicant undertakes that he shall not create third party interest and part with the possession of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. He further submits that his client shall also not raise any construction in the suit property till further orders of this Court. The learned Senior counsel has argued that since the entire consideration has been paid to defendant No.1 who has executed the sale deed in favour of CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 12 of 17 his client, therefore, the sale deeds be not be cancelled, as his client was the bonafide purchaser who had purchased the suit property after passing of the decree in favour of his client by the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi.
24. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for defendant No.1 have also argued that on merits the plaintiff has no case on merit as suit filed by the plaintiff is totally misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the Court and there is hardly any chance for getting success by the plaintiff in the present case.
25. Firstly, I must mention that at this stage, this Court is not concerned whether the plaintiff has any case on merits or not, or the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous. Since the scope of the pending application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC is limited to the extent that as to whether the interim orders passed by this Court on 20th April, 2005 and 1st February, 2007 as well as on 24th September, 2007 (by the Division Bench) have been violated by defendant No.1 or not.
26. In fact, the applicant filed the said documents, the details of which are mentioned in para 18 of my order, in order to show that there was an agreement-cum-receipt dated 24th March, 2005 between the defendant No.1 and the applicant, the said document has been filed by the applicant which shows that defendant No.1 has received a sum of Rs.1 lac from the applicant against the sale of his ½ undivided share of entire roof rights of the ground floor for the first floor and above the property. As regards the remaining documents filed by the applicant are concerned, the same are of the period subsequent to the date of passing the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time. It is not necessary for this Court, at this stage, to examine the validity of the said documents filed by the applicant except one document, i.e. agreement-cum-receipt dated 24th CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 13 of 17 March, 2005 which is heavily relied upon by the applicant. Admittedly, even this document is of later period of two agreements dated 4th May, 2004 and 29th July, 2004 arrived between the plaintiff and the defendants and on the basis of said document the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance which is pending. After examining the said documents relied upon by the applicant, prima facie it transpires that the said agreement-cum-receipt dated 24th March, 2005 does not contain the detail as to how the said amount was paid by Sikander Pal to defendant No.1.
27. The applicant has filed the agreement to sale and purchase dated 28th December, 2007 between the defendant No.1 and the applicant, Sikander Pal. There is no reference at all about the said agreement-cum- receipt dated 24th March, 2005. If the said agreement is read in meaningful manner, it appears that it was a new agreement where the reference of the earlier agreement is not mentioned. Admittedly, the said agreement dated 28th December, 2007 if executed in between defendant No.1 and the applicant, is subsequent in time i.e., after passing the interim orders by this Court.
28. In case the receipt filed by the applicant, dated 24th March, 2005 is a genuine document, one fails to understand why the said agreement was not disclosed by defendant No.1 in filing of the written statement in this Court. Acknowledgement of Rs.1 lac against the said receipt is also not mentioned in the two sale deeds executed between defendant No.1, though there is a reference of the said amount in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th December, 2008 filed before the Civil Judge, Delhi wherein the suit was filed by defendant No.1 against the applicant on 31st January, 2008. Prima-facie, it appears that the said transaction by defendant No.1 with the applicant is not clear and rather it creates the doubt in the mind of Court as to whether the said CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 14 of 17 document which has been produced by the applicant is genuine or not and said transaction between them may not be done by them in order to cover up the violation of the interim orders and frustrate the right of the plaintiff. At the same time, it is very much doubtful as to whether the application filed by the applicant is maintainable.
29. It is relevant to refer the decision given in the case of Surjit Singh and others etc. etc. vs. Harbans Singh and others etc. etc., reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 135, the relevant para-4 reads as under:-
"4. As said before, the assignment is by means of a registered deed. The assignment had taken place after the passing of the preliminary decree in which Pritam Singh has been allotted 1/3rd share. His right to property to that extent stood established. A decree relating to immovable property worth more than hundred rupees, if being assigned, was required to be registered. That has instantly been done. It is per se property, for it relates to the immovable property involved in the suit. It clearly and squarely fell within the ambit of the restraint order. In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Once that is so, Pritam Singh and his assignees, respondents herein, cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment. Therefore, the assignees-respondents could not have been impleaded by the trial court as parties to the suit, in disobedience of its orders. The principles of lis pendens are altogether on a different footing. We do not propose to examine their involvement presently. All what is emphasised is that the assignees in the present facts and circumstances had no cause to be impleaded as parties to the CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 15 of 17 suit. On that basis, there was no cause for going into the question of interpretation of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the settlement deed. The path treaded by the courts below was, in our view, out of their bounds. Unhesitatingly, we upset all the three orders of the courts below and reject the application of the assignees for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC."
30. In view of aforesaid reasons and settled law, I am of the considered view that the application filed by the applicant, Sikander Pal is not maintainable. It appears that the same has been filed by him in order to help defendant No.1 in the contempt proceedings. The application (being I.A. No.7468/2012) is therefore, under these circumstances, dismissed, with cost of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited by the applicant with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks from today.
31. As far as the contempt proceedings against defendant No.1 are concerned, after having considered the matter from various aspects, I am satisfied that there has been a willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court by defendant No.1. From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is clear that defendant No.1 was aware about the interim orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court, but despite of that, he still settled the matter with the third party after passing the said orders and executed the sale deeds. The proceedings initiated by him against Sikander Pal appear to be bogus one and it was done by him in order to defeat and frustrate the orders passed by this Court.
32. Under these circumstances, defendant No.1 is directed to deposit the entire consideration received by him from Sikander Pal, with the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of six weeks from today. This Court also imposes cost of Rs.5 lac upon defendant No.1, to CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 16 of 17 be deposited by him with the Delhi High Court Library Fund within six weeks. In failure to do so, the contemnor/ defendant No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months and he shall be detained immediately after the expiry of six weeks. He is directed to surrender himself before the Registrar General of this Court, who shall take all requisite measures to comply the said order by sending him for simple imprisonment as mentioned above.
33. It is also ordered that all the transactions made by defendant No.1, either in favour of Sikander Pal or otherwise after passing the interim orders dated 20th April, 2005 & 1st February, 2007 as well as on 24th September, 2007 by the Division Bench of this Court, shall be treated as of no consequence.
34. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court for compliance.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JULY 02, 2012 CS (OS) No.508/2005 Page 17 of 17