NARAIN SINGH Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this civil contempt petition are that Narain Singh, petitioner herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Addl. District Judge Delhi seeking injunction against the respondents Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh restraining them from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the piece of land measuring 2 bighas, 18 biswas in Khasra No. 6/19/2 situated in village Samaipur, Delhi. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Shri M.S. Rohilla, Addl. District Judge vide order dated 11.6.1990 granted ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the suit land, but on an application moved by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the Addl. District Judge, Mrs. Manju Goel, vide her detailed order dated 29.6.1990 vacated the stay order and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding, prima facie, that the petitioner is neither In possession nor has title over the suit land. That order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before this Court.

(2.) In this contempt petition filed by the petitioner, it has been alleged that he purchased this land vide registered sale deed on 14.5.89 from Maman Singh, who delivered the possession of the land to him and his name has been duly recorded as in possession in Khasra Girdwari as well as in Khatauni. According to the petitioner despite the order dated 11.6.90 passed by Shri M.S. Robilla, Addl. District Judge, the respondents tried to dispossess him and on 26.6.90, the respondents along with large number of persons armed with deadly weapons came to the suit land and tried to dispossess the petitioner. Police was called and case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506, 323, 427 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondents and others. An application for contempt of Court was filed before the same Addl. District Judge and the petitioner also moved an application for appointment of a local Commissioner, but the Addl. District Judge vacated the stay order without consideration of the contention of the petitioner. In the appeal show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and it was ordered that the petitioner will not be dispossessed without due process of law. Despite this order dated 30.6.90, the respondents continued their attempt to forcibly dispossess the petitioner which led him to file an application for early hearing. On the application moved by the petitioner, a local Commissioner was appointed and that local Commissioner in his report did not find the respondents in possession of the suit land. According to the petitioner, the respondents have no regard for the orders of the Court and are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land and as such they are guilty of the contempt of Court.

(3.) The respondents contested this petition and filed written reply. According to the respondents this contempt petition is counterblast to the contempt petition filed by the respondents being No. 80/91. There is no cause of action against the respondents. The petitioner obtained injunction order by playing fraud on the vacation Judge Shri M.S. Rohilla, A.O.J. by not disclosing true facts. By obtaining the ex-parte injunction order the petitioner tried to interfere in the possession of the respondent, but they could not succeed and filed this contempt petition. This plea of the petitioner was not accepted by the Addl. District Judge, who rejected the application holding that there has not been any violation of any order passed by the Court and no contempt is made out. It is only to pressurise the respondents that this contempt petition has been filed. Regarding the report of the local Commissioner, it is submitted that it is a self-seeking evidence and V.K.. Seth, Local Commissioner has been assisting Shri Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate who is the Counsel for petitioner in this petition in a number of cases of DDA as Shri Ravinder Sethi is the Counsel for DDA. The report given by Shri V.K. Sethi in such circumstances is not believable and further this report is at the back of the respondents and no reliance can be placed on such a report which is self-seeking evidence and moreover, it is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition as the report is of later period.