Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1691 (RAJ)

Asu Singh v. Raghuveer Dayal Meena

2014-10-16

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of order dated 8.9.2000 passed by this court in S.B.C.Writ Petition No. 3246/2000, which stands confirmed vide order dated 4.7.01. The order dated 8.9.2000 reads as under: "Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the subject land." 2. The case of the petitioner is that wilfully and deliberately flouting the directions issued by this court, the respondent No. 3-contemnor, who is respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, has transferred the disputed land in favour of one Smt. Akta Pareek w/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Pareek by way of registered sale deed dated 29.2.12. It is submitted that a copy of the interim order passed by the writ court as aforesaid, was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 and 2 and requested them not to mutate the land in favour of the purchaser, however, the respondent No. 1 and 2 ignoring the order passed by this court, sanctioned the mutation in favour of the purchaser. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents-contemnors are guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 8.9.2000 passed by this court and therefore, deserve to be punished adequately. 3. A reply to the contempt petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 taking the stand that the copy of the stay order dated 8.9.2000 was never served upon them nor the petitioner ever requested them not to mutate the land in favour of the purchaser. It is stated that the land was mutated in favour of the purchaser after going through the contents of the sale deed wherein it is specifically mentioned that in respect of the land subject matter of the sale deed, no case is instituted in any court and no stay order granted by the court is operative. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 that they have not disobeyed the order passed by this court. 4. The respondent No. 3 in the reply to the contempt petition filed, has taken the stand that the copy of the writ petition was not served upon him. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 that they have not disobeyed the order passed by this court. 4. The respondent No. 3 in the reply to the contempt petition filed, has taken the stand that the copy of the writ petition was not served upon him. It is averred that the petitioner did not communicate the stay order to the respondent or to the Registrar concerned on or before the registration of the sale deed and as a matter of fact, the petitioner produced the said order before the concerned authority at the time of attestation and acceptance of the mutation. Suffice it to say that the respondent has denied the knowledge of interim order passed by the court as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after passing of the interim order as aforesaid, the notices along with copy of the writ petition were duly served upon the respondent No. 3 herein and the power was filed on his behalf Mr.B.K. Mehar, Advocate on 15.5.01 and interim order dated 8.9.2000 was confirmed thereafter on 4.7.01 and therefore, the defence sought to be taken by the respondent No. 3 that he had no knowledge about the interim order passed by this court is false to his knowledge. 6. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent No. 3 having put in appearance and being represented by the counsel before this court, cannot be permitted to plead that he had no knowledge about the interim order passed by this court. In this view of the matter, the respondent No. 3 is apparently guilty of committing wilful disobedience of the order passed by this court. However, on the basis of the material on record, it is not proved that the respondent No. 1 and 2 had knowledge about the interim order passed by this court and therefore, the contempt proceedings initiated against them deserve to be dropped. 7. Heard the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 on the quantum of punishment. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 3-contemnor is illiterate and an old aged person, having no knowledge about the binding force tangibly embodied in the order passed by the court and therefore, acting bona fide, has transferred the property in question. Learned counsel submitted that obviously, the transfer effected shall be governed by the lis pendence. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 3-contemnor is illiterate and an old aged person, having no knowledge about the binding force tangibly embodied in the order passed by the court and therefore, acting bona fide, has transferred the property in question. Learned counsel submitted that obviously, the transfer effected shall be governed by the lis pendence. Learned counsel prayed that in identical fact situation, this court in Contempt Petition No. 135/08 disposed of vide order dated 20.2.13, has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- upon the respondent-contemnor therein and the respondent-contemnor is also ready to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner as fine within a period of one month. Accordingly, it is prayed that taking a lenient view, instead of sentencing the petitioner to simple imprisonment or directing his detention in civil prison, the offer made to pay the fine as aforesaid, may be accepted. 9. As noticed above, in the considered opinion of this court, the lack of knowledge of interim order as pleaded by the respondent No. 3- contemnor is not plausible and therefore, cannot be accepted. However, taking into consideration, the old age of the respondent No. 3-contemnor and the order already passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Civil Contempt Petition No. 135/08 against the contemnor therein in identical facts situation, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment or directing his detention in the civil prison, the offer made by the respondent No. 3-contemnor to pay fine a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner, deserves to be accepted. 10. Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the respondent No. 3-contemnor, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 11. The contempt proceeding as against the respondent No. 1 and 2 is dropped and notices issued to them shall stand discharged. 12. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of. *******