BIMAL CHANDRA SEN Vs. KAMLA MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Facts : The plaintiff, Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, owns property No. 4405 in Darya Ganj, Delhi. He says that he gave a portion of his property on lease and licence to one Mrs. Kamla Mathur wife of Shri Rama Shankar Mathur. The plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Mathur was making illegal construction in the property. On 6-4-1981 he brought a suit in the court of the subordinate judge, Mr. S. N. Gupta, for permanent injunction restraining Mrs. Mathur, her servants and agents, from carrying on any construction activities in the property. In. the suit the plaintiff made an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subordinate judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, her agents and servants.. on 6-4-1981. On 6-6-81 he modified the injunction order. From this order they, the plaintiff and the defendants, appealed to the court of the senior sub judge. Those appeals were dismissed.

(2.) Now the plaintiff has made an application to this court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The respondents to this application are (1) Mrs. Kamla Mathur and (2) Rama Shankar Mathur. The plaintiff complains that both wife and husband have flouted the order of injunction by going on with the construction. He says that they should be committed for contempt for acting in defiance of the injunction. The wife is admittedly a party to the suit The husband is said to be an aider and abettor of contempt because he is 'supervising the fresh illegal construction activities."

(3.) Notice of this application was issued to the wife and the husband. They appeared in court and are represented by counsel. The matter first came before Charanjit Talwar J. He was of the view that the husband was not a party to the suit and tile averments made against him prima facie constituted on offence of criminal contempt of court. Since cognizance of criminal contempt can be taken only by a division bench he, by order dated September 1, 1981, directed that the matter be placed before a division bench. This is how the mater has come before us.