Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1081 (JHR)

Anuradha Keshari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-30

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER 1. This case was initiated on the complain of disobedience of the order of this Court passed in S.A. No.66 of 2011 and breach of undertaking by the Opposite Party No.2. 2. The Opposite Party No.2 was the tenant and the petitioner was the landlord. The decree was passed in favour of the landlord and confirmed in appeal. The opposite party had preferred S.A. No.66 of 2011. The said appeal was dismissed, but on the prayer of the opposite party that he needs some time for searching alternative accommodation and shifting his establishment as also on his undertaking to vacate the suit premises himself by 30th November, 2011, time was granted to the petitioner and the execution proceeding was stayed till 30th November, 2011. 3. When the opposite party did not vacate the premises by 30th November, 2011, the petitioner filed this case, complaining violation of the order of this Court. The opposite party was noticed. He had appeared and filed his reply, stating that he has delivered vacant possession of the suit premises. The petitioner controverted the same and stated that only half of the area of the suit premises was vacated and the opposite party is still occupying half of the suit premises. The order was, therefore, passed, directing the court below to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner through the process of the Court. 4. Learned court below, thereafter, issued process and ultimately with the help of police force, the vacant possession could be delivered to the petitioner-decree holder. 5. The petitioner submitted that the opposite party is liable for suitable punishment for breach of undertaking and noncompliance of the order of this Court. 6. The matter is listed for consideration and passing an appropriate order in the aforesaid circumstance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order of this Court and the undertaking given by the opposite party, he did not vacate the suit premises within the prescribed time and as such he has grossly violated the order of this Court and is made himself liable for suitable punishment for committing Contempt of this Court. Learned counsel submitted that though now the petitioner has got vacant possession of the suit premises, it has been vacated through the process of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that though now the petitioner has got vacant possession of the suit premises, it has been vacated through the process of the Court. The petitioner has been put to unnecessary harassment, loss and injuries and is entitled to be indemnified for the same. The opposite party also deserves suitable punishment for breaching his undertaking and disobeying order of this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the opposite party is a petty vegetable vendor. He has every remorse for causing inconvenience to this Court. In fact, he had delivered peaceful possession of the suit premises, but some belongings were only lying in a portion of the suit premises, that has also been now removed and vacant possession of the premises has been given to the petitioner. The opposite party has tendered unqualified apology and also prays for pity and compassion from this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party has realized the inconvenience of the petitioner as well and on his own is offering to pay Rs.10,000/to make good the loss and expenses incurred in this Court. 10. The petitioner's husband, who is present in Court, at this stage volunteered to forget the past and accept the amount offered by the opposite party. The opposite party thereupon paid Rs.10,000/to the petitioner's husband in the Court and payment has been acknowledged by him. 11. Considering the said development and that the petitioner has got peaceful possession of the suit premises and the opposite party has himself offered and paid Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner to compensate to some extent on account of the loss and injury caused to the petitioner as also that the opposite party is a petty vegetable vendor and deserves sympathy and compassion, this Court does not want to proceed with the case any further. 12. The proceeding is dropped with the warning to the opposite party to be cautious in future in compliance of the Court's order. 13. This case stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.