Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 471 (BOM)

Shree Anand Sat Sangh v. Sundarlal Saraf & others

2002-06-07

D.G.KARNIK

body2002
JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:---The property known as "Saraf House" situated at 39, Turner Road, Corner of St. Martin Road, Bandra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Saraf House) was owned by Gangabai Saraf and her family members. Shree Anand Sat Sangh the respondent No. 1 herein is in possession of a portion of ground floor of the Saraf House. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit bearing Suit No. 4510 of 1994 in the High Court for a declaration that it is the owner of the ground floor of the Saraf House described in Exhibit B to the plaint and for injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit (including the present petitioner) from disturbing the possession of the Sat Sangh. In the plaint, it was alleged that the ground floor of Saraf House was bequeathed to it by later Smt. Gangabai Saraf under a Will dated 6-7-1990. 2. In the said suit, Shree Anand Sat Sangh the respondent No. 1 therein, applied for ad interim relief by taking out Notice of Motion No. 134 of 1994. By an order dated 16-12-1994 passed by this Court (Coram : Vijay Bahuguna, J.) directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises i.e. in respect of the built up portion of about 2000 sq. ft of the ground floor of the "Saraf House". In another Notice of Motion No. 134 of 1995, this Court granted permission to the defendants to use the bathroom/latrine store room and kitchen on the ground floor on 14th and 15th January, 1995. By another order dated 7-7-1995 passed by this Court in the same motion, respondent No. 1 was allowed to use the bathroom cum latrine and kitchen on 9th, 12th, 17th July, 1995 and 3rd November, 1995. By minutes of order dated 30th September 1997, respondent No. 1 was allowed to use the bathroom cum latrine, staircase and kitchen as and when it called upon the defendants in the suit to do so. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 took out another Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 in Suit No. 4510 of 1994 claiming for some more reliefs. By an order dated 21st June, 2001 passed in the said Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 this Court declined to grant ad interim relief. 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 took out another Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 in Suit No. 4510 of 1994 claiming for some more reliefs. By an order dated 21st June, 2001 passed in the said Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 this Court declined to grant ad interim relief. 3. The sum total of the orders passed by the Court in various notices of motions in Suit No. 4510 of 1994 is that the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises and further defendants were directed to permit Shree Anand Sat Sangh, the respondent No. 1 herein, to use the bathroom cum latrine and kitchen as and when upon by it. Further, reliefs claimed by the respondent No. 1 herein were not granted. 4. Present contempt petition is filed by original defendant No. 2 in Suit No. 4510 of 1994 alleging that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 have committed various acts narrated in para Nos. 2(a) to 2(g) of para 7 of the petition which amount to Contempt of the Court. 5. Mr. M.C. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner after reading out para Nos. (a) to (g), submitted that the following acts committed by the respondents amount to the contempt: (i) Respondent has constructed a temporary shed in the compound of the property 'saraf house' without obtaining the prior permission of the Court or the Court Receiver who was appointed in a collateral proceedings filed by the Indian Bank against the petitioner and other family members of Saraf family for recovery of money. This construction of the temporary shed amounts to the breach of the order of status quo passed by the Court. (ii) Respondent No. 1 and its trustees/employees who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have willfully ignored the orders passed by the Court refusing to grant ad interim reliefs in Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 and thereby committed a breach of the order. (iii) The respondent No. 1 has made a false and frivolous complaint to the Bombay Municipal Corporation and its officers that the petitioner and members of the Saraf family converted the bathroom cum toilet into the servants' room though in fact it was converted as such 18 to 20 years ago. (iii) The respondent No. 1 has made a false and frivolous complaint to the Bombay Municipal Corporation and its officers that the petitioner and members of the Saraf family converted the bathroom cum toilet into the servants' room though in fact it was converted as such 18 to 20 years ago. They misled the Bombay Municipal Corporation and other authorities by showing the status quo order passed by this Court and this misleading amounts to the contempt. (iv) The respondent No. 1 appointed security guards with a view to threaten and annoy the petitioner. There was no reason for the respondent No. 1 to appoint security guards and appointment of security guards amounts to interference with the possession of the property of the petitioners and/or Court Receiver. (v) The respondent No. 1 uses loud speakers without permission either from the owners or the Court Receiver and has also fixed its board on the boundary wall of the suit premises. Due to loud noise of the loud speakers, great nuisance and annoyance is caused to the petitioner and other Saraf family members and neighbours. 6. Mr. M.C. Shah submitted that all these above acts amount to contempt of the Court within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads thus :- Section 2(b) : "Civil Contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of undertaking given to Court. 7. Let me examine whether any of the acts complained of by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, amounts to civil contempt of Court as alleged. 8. Regarding ground No. (i) above : The property which formed the subject matter of the Suit No. 4510 of 1994 is described in Exhibit J -2 (page 90) attached to the contempt petition thus : "Residential premises admeasuring about 2000 sq. ft or thereabout situated on the ground floor of the building known as 'Saraf House' situate at 39, Turner Road, Corner of St. Martin Road, Bandra, Mumbai." 9. It would be clear by reading of the description of the property that the open ground in the property surrounding the main building is not the subject matter of the suit. The order of status quo was passed in the suit premises meaning thereby it was in respect of the built up ground floor. Martin Road, Bandra, Mumbai." 9. It would be clear by reading of the description of the property that the open ground in the property surrounding the main building is not the subject matter of the suit. The order of status quo was passed in the suit premises meaning thereby it was in respect of the built up ground floor. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 constructed a shed in the open place in the compound i.e. outside the suit property. The order of status quo was not operative in respect of this open place and therefore, no breach is committed by the respondent No. 1 by construction of the shed as alleged. If the respondent No. 1 has constructed the shed illegally without obtaining permission of the owners and the Bombay Municipal Corporation, then the petitioner is free to take such other steps as are available to him under the law. It however, cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 committed contempt of the Court breach of the order of status quo erecting a shed in the suit premises. Reading Ground No. 2. : 10. The respondent No. 1 had sought certain reliefs by taking out Notice of Motion No. 1304 of 2001 in Suit No. 4510 of 1994. By an order dated 21-6-2001, the Court had declined to grant ad interim relief. Despite the fact that ad interim relief was declined, the respondent continued to carry out some of the acts, alleges Mr. Shah learned Counsel for the petitioner, in respect of which no interim relief was granted. Therefore, this according to Mr. Shah amounts to contempt of the Court. I am unable to agree. 11. When a party asks for interim/ad interim relief, the party seeks help of the Court. Such help may be in the nature of injunction restraining any other party to the suit by way of an injunction or any other order of the Court for protecting his rights. The party is not prevented from protecting its own rights, if any. Merely because, the Court declines to grant ad interim interim relief, the party is not prevented from doing something which it otherwise entitled to do for protecting its rights or the property. The party is not prevented from protecting its own rights, if any. Merely because, the Court declines to grant ad interim interim relief, the party is not prevented from doing something which it otherwise entitled to do for protecting its rights or the property. For example, the plaintiff in a suit may claim that he is in possession of the property lawfully and therefore, entitled to injunction against the defendants and the Court may decline to grant injunction holding that though he is in possession, he is not entitled to an injunction. The mere fact that the Court had declined to grant the relief of injunction does not mean that the plaintiff should voluntarily vacate the suit premises nor his continuing in possession amount to breach of orders of the Court or contempt. Regarding Ground Nos. (iii), (ivv) and (v). 12. Merely because, the respondent No. 1 had written letters to the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the petitioner and/or other family members have converted bathroom cum toilet into servant's room, I fail to see how writing of such letters amounts to disobedience of order of Court, amounting to civil contempt. 13. The same is the case with regard to the appointment of security guards. Admittedly, there were disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. In such circumstances if the respondent No. 1 appoints any security guard for protecting the property in respect of which status quo order was passed, it would not amount to civil contempt. Respondent's right of possession is not in any way weakened by the order of status quo passed by the Court. On the other hand, the order of status quo gives strength to the respondent No. 1 to protect its own possession. No contempt is committed by appointment of security guards. There was no prohibition to use loud speakers. Hence, there is no contempt by their use. 14. Thus, prima facie it is not shown that the respondent No. 1 has committed a civil contempt. 15. Contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. -----