Parbhati Lal vs Prabhu

Mahesh Grover, J.

C.M. No. 16021-CII of 2013

C.M. is allowed. Reply filed by way of affidavit of Prabhu is taken on record. C.M. No. 16022-CII of 2013

Allowed as prayed for.

C.O.C.P. No. 1601 of 2012

The petitioner alleges violation of the order of this Court vide which the following directions were given:

(i) The petitioner-JD shall complete the earth filling work on the plot being offered by him to the DH and shall also get the said plot fenced with barbed wire. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(ii) The JD shall file an affidavit regarding completion of the above mentioned works before the executing Court, Narnaul, who shall then appoint a Local Commissioner at the cost of the JD to visit the spot and submit a compliance report.

(iii) The petitioner-JD shall obtain a resolution duly signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to the effect that the alternative plot being offered to the DH, is free from all encumbrances and has been allotted to the petitioner JD only. In other words, it shall be got certified that the said plot does not belong to the Gram Panchayat, Chapra or any other private individual.

(iv) The subject decree was passed way back on 2.3.1998. The respondent-DH is struggling from last over 11 years to seek execution thereof. From the photographs on record, it appears that the construction has been raised by the petitioner-JD in utter defiance of the civil Court decree. In these circumstances, mere offer of an alternative plot can not be the complete satisfaction of the subject-decree. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the hue and cry raised by the DH that his two trees have also been removed, I further direct the petitioner-JD to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the DH towards costs. The costs shall be deposited with the executing Court or paid to the respondent by way of demand draft, within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(v) In case the petitioner-JD fails to comply with the aforementioned directions/undertakings, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the Executing Court shall see that the directions issued by it for removal of the construction raised by the JD are complied with without any delay.

(vi) Needless to say that once the alternative site is offered and possession delivered to the respondent-DH in the aforesaid terms, the respondent-DH shall have no claim over disputed part of Khasra No. 143.

In another Civil Revision bearing No. 6388 of 2010 this Court had passed the order the operative part of which is extracted here below:

Learned counsel for the judgment debtor has stated that judgment debtor is not in a position to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor, as mentioned in the order referred to above, that in case judgment debtor fails to pay the remaining amount, the present petition shall be dismissed in terms of the order (Annexure P2) passed in Civil Revision No. 2317 of 2009 titled "Prabhu vs. Parbhati Lal and others" decided on December 11th 2009 by this Court.

In view of this, this petition is dismissed in view of the aforesaid order.

The observations made in the aforesaid orders were on the strength of the representation made by the judgment-debtor and it may not be out of place to extract the representation made by the said respondent in both these revisions petitions bearing Nos. 2317 of 2009 and 6388 of 2010 the operative of which are extracted above. In Civil Revision No. 2317 of 2009 the respondent represented as follows:

During the course of hearing and in order to save his constructed house, the petitioner-JD is ready and willing to give an un-enumerated plot of the same size in the same vicinity. The JD, who is present in court along with his counsel has offered another plot, which also appears to be part of Khasra No. 143 to the DH, who is also present in court and accepts the offer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall get the work of earth filling done as the said part of land is a low-lying area. The DH further states that two shisham trees standing on his plot have also been removed by the JD, though it is disputed by the latter.

In Civil Revision No. 6388 of 2010 the extract of the order is as below:

Counsel for the JD/Petitioner concedes that the petitioner has not been able to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2009 (P2). He further concedes that sufficient indulgence has been granted by this Court to enable the petitioner to comply with the terms by providing an alternative plot in lieu of 50 square yards owned by the DH out of the joint khewat of 150 square yards over which the petitioner has already constructed a residential house. He as a last effort submits that since no alternative plot of identical size and value in the same vicinity has been located for allotment, the JD/Petitioner is willing to pay the price as determined on behalf of the respondent/DH towards the full and final settlement.

Upon this the learned counsel for the respondent upon instruction from Prem Parkash son of respondent/DH, who is pursuing the case on behalf of DH submits that DH would accept a sum of Rs. 2 lacs towards the sale price of the share of the DH and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and compensation besides an amount of Rs. 20,000/- already paid by the petitioner/JD. He further submits that petitioner be bound down to pay the remaining amount within a particular time frame since the decree of 1998 has still not been executed.

In response, counsel for the petitioner/JD undertakes to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- by way of demand draft on or before 16.1.2012 failing which the instant petition shall be deemed to be dismissed in terms of the order (P2) passed by this Court. He further prays that in the event of required amount is paid on or before the appointed date the respondent/DH be also bound down to execute the necessary sale deed qua his share. Counsel for the respondent/DH accepts the proposal of executing the sale deed within the given time frame.

The petitioner alleges that none of the aforesaid conditions have been complied with by the respondent, and therefore this amounts to contempt. The petitioner is present in Court so is the respondent.

The respondent through his counsel on the previous date of hearing i.e. 26.7.2013 had candidly admitted that he has not complied with the terms which were placed on him by the orders of this court and which in turn had been prompted by the representation that the respondent himself had made before this Court.

Today when the matter was taken up the learned counsel for the respondent while conceding that the aforesaid terms placed upon him by the Court have not been complied with but stated that at best the consequences of such a non-compliance would be the dismissal of the revision petition and nothing else.

After hearing the parties, I am of the view that the respondent has committed contempt of this Court. Once a specific representation has been made by an individual which persuaded this Court to pass an order which more or less reconciles the interest of the parties without really going into the merits of the case, then the person who defies the observations obviously did not intend to stand by the representation that he had offered and which had persuaded the court to pass an order on the terms which it deemed just on account of the stated stand of the parties before it.

Evidently the respondent has tried to overreach the court and had made a false representation with a clear intention of defying law.

This amounts to contempt in the face of the court. Finding that there is no denial to the fact of violation of the orders of this Court and finding no justification being offered for making a misrepresentation before the Court, I hold the respondent guilty under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The respondent has been asked to say anything in his defence in so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. He offers no explanation. This Court thus directs that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

Petition stands disposed of.

The order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul who shall ensure its compliance regarding imprisonment and fine imposed on the respondent-contemner. The petitioner would be at a liberty to move the court for recall of the order passed by it on the representation of the respondent in order to get an appraisal on merits.