Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 974 (RAJ)

Baldev Das v. Allabux

2006-03-27

PRAKASH TATIA

body2006
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The suit for eviction of tenant (contemner) was filed which was decreed by the trial Court on 03.05.2001. The appeal against the decree of trial Court for eviction of the contemner was dismissed by the appellate Court on 20.11.2001. Thereafter, second appeal being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 62/2002 was dismissed by this Court on 10.07.2002. While dismissing the appeal, this Court ordered that the contemner/defendant is given time to vacate the suit premises by or before 30.04.2003 on giving undertaking with usual conditions before the trial Court within a period of three weeks for the date of order of this Court. 3. Admittedly, the undertaking was submitted by the contemner before the trial Court, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure 2. Despite this undertaking, the possession was not delivered by the contemner and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, by that, the contemner has committed contempt of this Courts order by violating the conditions of undertaking, under the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also submitted that there was no interim order from any Court till the date expired for vacating the suit premises. According to the petitioner, thereafter, a petition was filed by the brothers of the contemner under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, wherein also, the contemner was not specifically directed to not to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It is also submitted that the contemner did not submit reply to the petition under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, filed by his own brothers resisting the delivery of possession and did not disclose the complete facts before the Court under which he contested the suit and took the benefit of the order of this Court dated 10.07.2003, therefore, the conduct of the contemner speaks volumes against him, therefore, he was liable to be punished, therefore, the petitioner submitted this contempt petition. 4. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the contemner has delivered the possession of the suit shop on 20.03.2006. 5. Learned Counsel for the contemner submits that the contemner has already tendered unconditional apology and submits that the contemner was put in wrong box as the contemner was not knowing at the time of giving undertaking that his brothers will revolt against him. 5. Learned Counsel for the contemner submits that the contemner has already tendered unconditional apology and submits that the contemner was put in wrong box as the contemner was not knowing at the time of giving undertaking that his brothers will revolt against him. It is also submitted that since the possession has been delivered to the petitioner, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be dropped as contemner has already purge the contempt. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts. 7. This Court is constrained to observe that the tendency of giving undertaking and thereafter, not delivering the possession of the property is the most rampant. It is also painful that the objections are filed by none else than by their brothers, sister or any close associate. It may be possible that in some cases, there may be collusive decree but unless and until it is proved that there are reasons to believe that the decree is collusive decree, the Courts have reason to believe that the decrees are not collusive. The decree is required to be executed with all force in its true spirit. The decree itself contains direction to the Judgment debtor to do something still unfortunately, the decree holder is required to execute it by execution proceedings under Order 21, CPC, where the decree holder can get the benefit of decree alone and the Judgment debtor can get the benefit of all technicalities of law which resulted in people saying "reel better starts after decree”. Even after amendment of CPC, several times and lastly in 2002, it has not been made obligatory upon the Judgment debtor to comply with the directions given in the decree and submit before the Court that he has complied with the directions given by the Court in the decree. 8. Much is required to be amended in entire proceedings of implementation of the directions given in the decree and till that is done, no real relief can be granted to the public at large and particularly to the decree holder, who paid the Court fees for getting the relief and not only for decree alone. The Court fees is taken for the "relief" and not for decree alone. 9. A lesson is required to be taken from the experiences. The Court fees is taken for the "relief" and not for decree alone. 9. A lesson is required to be taken from the experiences. The law as framed long ago may be good law at that time but if we ignore all the litigations and disputes raised now, then there cannot be legal reforms to give benefits to the public at large. None of the steps yet have been taken for avoiding such frivolous litigation after the final adjudication of the rights of the parties. This Court hopes that the steps will be taken by the law framers and learned Advocates of the Bar will also look into the matter, how the real benefit can be given to the public by avoiding such type of litigations where in fact, the question of the authority of the Court is involved. The reason is that the directions are issued by the Courts in the decree and are not given due respect by the Judgment debtor on the ground that at the most, decree holder can execute the decree and it lowers down the prestige and authority of the Courts. 10. The facts of this case clearly reveals that the suit was contested by the defendant/contemner himself . He fought the case upto the High Court, lost in three Courts and this Court showed indulgence by its Judgment dated 10.07.2002 and granted six months time to continue with the possession despite the decree for eviction. He submitted the written undertaking that he will comply with the order of this Court but did not deliver the possession within the time granted. Thereafter, his own brothers submitted objection petition against the execution of the decree for possession. If they had a good case, they could have done as law permits them to do so but in these contempt proceedings, the relevant fact is that admittedly, the contemner did not submit his defence forthwith before the executing Court that in fact, under what circumstances, he submitted the undertaking before the Court. He even submitted the reply to the contempt petition before this Court. The facts of which were taken note of by this Court in detail. 11. He even submitted the reply to the contempt petition before this Court. The facts of which were taken note of by this Court in detail. 11. Apart from the fact that the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent clearly submitted that the respondent was in possession and he is in possession of the suit property (still) and is in a position to deliver the possession of the suit property but he is not in a position to deliver the possession of the suit property in view of the order dated 05.05.2003 passed by the executing Court staying the execution proceedings. Again the same stand was taken on 01.02.2006 that he is in possession of the suit property. 12. This Court directed the contemner to remain present in Court by order dated 13.02.2006 and the contemner appeared before this Court on 02.03.2006 and clearly stated that he will deliver the possession of the suit property on or before 20.03.2006. Today it is stated that he has already delivered the possession of the suit property to the petitioner on 20.03.2006. 13. In view of the above facts, the case of willful disobedience of the Courts order is made out by violating the undertaking given by the contemner. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the contemner has tendered unconditional apology and has delivered the possession of the suit property, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be dropped. 14. This Court is of the view that without paying costs for such conduct of the contemner, if he is given exoneration from all punishments that may result into favouring all those persons who are in habit of taking the Courts for granted for not taking any action in the contempt proceedings resulting into initiation of several unnecessary litigation. At the same time this Court cannot ignore that the liberty of one person may not be taken away if a reasonable other action may serve the purpose as deterrent. 15. Looking to the fact that he has already delivered the possession of the suit premises and of old age and tendered unconditional apology, though the conduct of contemner can be justified, still a lenient view is taken. 16. In view of the above, for the time being, these contempt proceedings are dropped on condition that the contemner shall pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 16. In view of the above, for the time being, these contempt proceedings are dropped on condition that the contemner shall pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-within a period of two months from today and in case, compensation is not paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, then the petitioner will be free to move the application for revival of this contempt petition for passing appropriate order for punishing him after hearing the contemner. 17. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage.