Judgment V.K. SHALI, J. CM No.20346/2014 1) This order shall dispose of CM No.20346/2014 by virtue of which impleadment of the applicants in the present contempt proceedings as well as recall of the order dated 19.11.2014 is sought. The aforesaid application was heard pursuant to allowing the application of the applicant being CM No.20863/2014 as the learned counsel for the applicant stated that there is an impending threat of demolition of the property in question i.e. Flat No.100, A-4, Priyadarshini Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 2) Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, it may be pertinent hereto give a brief background of the case. 3) The petitioner had filed the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of the court dated 04.04.2014. The said order reads as under: “1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 to 4 to take action against the respondent No.5 for raising illegal/unauthorised construction over flat bearing No.A-4/100, Priyadarshini Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, and for demolishing the said illegal construction. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that his client had submitted a complaint dated 21.03.2014 to the respondents No.1 to 4 bringing to their notice the unauthorised construction being undertaken by the respondent No.5, without obtaining sanctioned building plan from the competent authority and he has been requesting them to take appropriate action in accordance with law (Annexure P-1). As the petitioner did not hear from the respondents, the present petition came to be filed on 27.03.2014. It is submitted that within two days thereafter, the officers of the respondent No.2/DDA had inspected the flat, but no action has been taken by them thereafter. 3. Issue notice. 4. Counsels for the respondents No.1 to 4 accept notice. Counsel for the respondent No.1/NDMC states that the building activities of the subject Society situated in Paschim Vihar are still with the respondent No.2/DDA and NDMC has no role to play in the matter. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA states that if the building activities of the subject area have been retained by the DDA, then it shall take necessary steps to examine the complaint dated 21.03.2014 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-1) and take appropriate action as per law, as expeditiously as possible. 6. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA states that if the building activities of the subject area have been retained by the DDA, then it shall take necessary steps to examine the complaint dated 21.03.2014 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-1) and take appropriate action as per law, as expeditiously as possible. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent No.2/DDA to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioner and if it is satisfied that there exists illegal/unauthorised construction in the subject flat owned by the respondent No.5, then appropriate action for removal of the unauthorised construction shall be taken after issuance of notice to the respondent No.5, in accordance with law. A written intimation of the decision taken by the respondent No.2/DDA shall be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent No.5, within six weeks from today. 7. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application.” 4) The grievance of the petitioner was that he had made a complaint on 21.03.2014 to the respondents one of which was the DDA indicating that there is an unauthorized construction in respect of the property in question. The property in question was Flat No.A-4/100, A-4, Priyadarshini Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 5) The court on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the DDA took note of the fact that since the building activities of the subject area continued to be with the DDA, therefore, they will take necessary steps to examine the complaint and take appropriate action for removal of unauthorized construction as per law as expeditiously as possible. 6) The court also directed that the DDA shall in respect of the flat owned by the respondent No.5, who is one of the present applicants, take appropriate action for removal of unauthorized construction after issuing notice to the respondent No.5 in accordance with law. 7) A written intimation of the decision taken by respondent No.2/DDA was to be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 (one of the applicants herein) within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. 8) On the present contempt petition having been filed on the premise that the respondents had not acted in pursuance to the order dated 04.04.2014, notice was issued in the matter. 8) On the present contempt petition having been filed on the premise that the respondents had not acted in pursuance to the order dated 04.04.2014, notice was issued in the matter. 9) The respondents filed their status report on 15.11.2014 stating that the demolition order in respect of the entire society including the flat in question has been passed on 21.05.2014 and a copy of the order was also annexed with the status report. It was stated that a programme for demolition was fixed by the Deputy Director (LM), West Zone on 07.10.2014 and so far as flat in question was concerned, the same has been partially demolished and sealed. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present contempt petition be dismissed and the contempt notice be discharged. 10) The matter was heard on 19.11.2014 when the petitioner brought to the notice of the court various photographs which had been filed by him along with CM No.17491/2014 placing on record the photographs which show that only a partial demolition in respect of the unauthorized construction at the flat in question had been carried out. 11) It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DDA flats in question are only double storyed, the ground floor is purportedly owned by the petitioner while as the first floor flat is owned by R-5 {WP(C)No.2247/2014}, who is one of the applicants herein. It was further stated that the photographs which were placed on page Nos.31 to 33 of the petition and page Nos.10 to 12 of CM No.17491/2014 would show that the second and third floor had been constructed over and above the first floor which essentially constitutes unauthorized construction in respect of which no action has been taken by the officials of the respondents. This court accordingly passed an order on 19.11.2014 after taking into consideration the status report and hearing the counsel for the petitioner that the orders of the court with regard to the removal of unauthorized construction have to be taken both in letter and spirit of the order of the court dated 04.04.2014. This court accordingly passed an order on 19.11.2014 after taking into consideration the status report and hearing the counsel for the petitioner that the orders of the court with regard to the removal of unauthorized construction have to be taken both in letter and spirit of the order of the court dated 04.04.2014. The intention of passing this order was that incase the second and third floor of the property in question happen to be totally unauthorized and the court has already directed the officials of the DDA to remove the unauthorized construction, then they ought to have initiated action with regard to the removal of the second and third floor. The case was fixed for compliance of this order on 08.01.2015. However, it seems that the applicants got a whiff of the aforesaid order having been passed on 19.11.2014 (as they must have been observing the court proceedings), filed CM No.20346/2014 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party in the contempt petition. On 12.12.2014, a pass over was sought and in view of the heavy board of the court, the matter was directed to be listed on 08.01.2015, which was the date fixed in the matter. This resulted in CM No.20863/2014 being filed. As a consequence of which the application got heard again on 24.12.2014 when the learned counsel for the applicants addressed arguments after having got the application adjourned on a couple of occasions. Thus, in essence, the application for early hearing stood allowed and the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants on CM No.20346/2014 were heard. 12) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants essentially has been that firstly they be impleaded under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as a party to the present contempt proceedings and secondly the order dated 19.11.2014 be recalled on two grounds. 13) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this court vide order dated 19.11.2014 could not have directed the demolition of the second and third floor of the property in question as it would tantamount to enlarging the original order dated 04.04.2014 disposing of the writ petition wherein the removal of the unauthorized construction was directed. 14) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that if the order dated 04.04.2014 is perused, there was a specific direction that the DDA was to issue a notice to the respondent No.5/applicant herein for the purpose of removal of unauthorized construction. In the instant case, the direction of the court has not been complied with, thus, the consequent action of the respondents was unsustainable in the eyes of law. 15) It has also been contended that the court could not have directed for removal of the second and third floor by observing in the order dated 19.11.2014 that it casts additional load on the structural foundation of the property in question as there was no evidence before the court that would show that additional load was being placed on the structure. 16) The learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.C.Gupta and Anr. V. Hari Om Prakash and Ors; (2013) 10 SCC 658 ; Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors.v. Ved Prakash Joshi and Ors.; (2005) 6 SCC 98 and V.M.Manohar Prasad v. N.Ratnam Raju and Anr.; (2004) 13 SCC 610 to contend that no substantive relief could have been given to the petitioner in the contempt petition; more so, when the respondents/DDA in their status report have specifically stated that since they have carried out the partial demolition after passing of the order dated 04.04.2014 and thus the contempt petition be dismissed, the court ought not to have given a direction for carrying out the demolition of the second and third floor of the property in question. It has also been contended that by doing so, the court has exceeded its powers and consequently, the order dated 19.11.2014 deserves to be recalled. 17) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. However, I do not agree with the contentions raised by him. 18) In the first instance, there cannot be an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party notwithstanding the fact that one of the applicants was impleaded as R-5 in the writ petition. There may be more than one party to the writ petition but it is not necessary for the petitioner to implead all of them as parties in a contempt petition. There may be more than one party to the writ petition but it is not necessary for the petitioner to implead all of them as parties in a contempt petition. 19) Assuming that no service was effected on the applicants and the writ petition was allowed at the threshold itself with some direction. The remedy to such a party is to file an application in the writ seeking recall or file a petition for substantive relief rather than file an application in a contempt petition seeking impleadment. The contempt petition will be filed only against such of the party to whom a direction is given and there is an allegation of willful disobedience. Therefore, the application of the applicants does not deserve to be allowed. 20) An order of demolition even if it is passed may not be a correct order as alleged, it can be challenged by an aggrieved party as it gives rise to a fresh cause of action in favor of the applicants to file a substantive petition or assail the same under Section 30 & 31 of the DDA Act, 1957 before the MCD, Appellate Tribunal as the same is an appealable order rather filing an application under the present contempt petition seeking impleadment. Therefore, the line of action which has been chosen by the applicant is not permissible in law to get impleaded in a contempt petition and then try to justify the action initiated by the court or to defend the action which has been taken by the respondents against whom the contempt is alleged. For these reasons, I feel that the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 21) Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the applicants are held to be a party to the present contempt petition to address the arguments, still it cannot be said that merely because the respondents have filed their status report and sought dismissal of the contempt petition and discharge of the contempt notice would be a ground for this court to dismiss the contempt petition and discharge the contempt notice. The court is concerned with the implementation of the order as the contempt is filed for enforcing the order passed by the court in a writ petition and there is no dispute about the fact that once the order is passed by the court, which is unambiguous, it must be complied with both in letter and spirit. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that these are essentially double storyed flats where the ground floor of the property in question is allotted to the petitioner and the first floor is allotted to one of the applicants herein/respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.2247/2014. 22) The applicant/respondent No.5 has constructed two more floors over and above the floor allotted to her. The visual depiction in the photographs clearly shows that two floors have been constructed by the applicant/respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.2247/2014 and no action qua these floors has been taken by the respondents. This primarily was the grievance of the petitioner that he made a complaint to the respondents on account of the alleged unauthorized construction which ought to have been attended to. It was in this context that the court had passed an order on 04.04.2014 as well as on 19.11.2014 that the respondents will take into consideration the complaint of the petitioner dated 21.03.2014 and in case any unauthorized construction is found in the flat in question, then the same was to be dealt with in accordance with law. Dealing with the unauthorized construction in accordance with law only envisages passing of the demolition order and the sealing of the same and once the demolition order is passed, necessarily it has to be not only an order on paper, but it has to be an effective order for which purpose the court is well within its powers to enforce the same by giving a direction and the same has been done by this court on 19.11.2014. 23) I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that this court has exceeded its powers or tried to enlarge the scope of the original order dated 04.04.2014. 23) I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that this court has exceeded its powers or tried to enlarge the scope of the original order dated 04.04.2014. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants does not have any merit and the application is dismissed leaving the applicant/ respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.2247/2014 free to take such action as may be permissible to her in accordance with law. 24) I may also mention that the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment in T.C.Gupta and Anr. V. Hari Om Prakash and Ors; (2013) 10 SCC 658 . But the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case for two reasons. First, it was a case of criminal contempt while as the present case deals with a civil contempt and seeks implementation of the order of demolition passed by the DDA which is being sought to be done by the court in letter and spirit. Secondly, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to para 15 of the judgment to impress that power to punish should be used cautiously, wisely and with circumspection, etc. I fail to understand how does the observation help the applicants because contempt is not alleged against them and wherefrom the learned counsel draws the inference that the power is not being used with utmost care and caution. Merely because the action of the DDA is threatening the removal of the unauthorized construction raised by the applicants does not does not make the use of power by the court as questionable. Therefore, the judgment is of no help to the applicants. 25) So far as the other two judgments are concerned, they are also distinguishable on facts and no substantive relief is being granted to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, CM No.20346/2014 is dismissed and post the matter on 08.01.2015 before roster Bench subject to order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice as fixed earlier.