ARUN KUMAR Vs. CHUNNILAL KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of two orders of this Court dated 28 August 1986 and 16 December 1986 in R.F.A. No. 282/86 and passed in C.M. No. 786/86. The defendants numbering two came up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional district Judge whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiffs granting them, decree for Rs.27,000/- with costs and future interest and also granted a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants with direction to remove their entire belongings from the premises bearing No. EZ-29, Ring Road, Opposite Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The appeal was admitted on 28 August 1986 and on the application for stay of the judgment and decree the court issued the following orders:-

(2.) Since the appeal was pending in this Court, the plaintiff- respondents per force had to file separate suit for recovery of further amount towards rent/licence fee from the appellants. During those proceeding it came to the notice of the plaintiff respondents that the defendants-appellants had parted with possession of the property in favour of various parties, namely, (1) M/s. Ganesh Marbles, (2) M/s. Arihant Marbles, (3) M/s. Evershing Harbles, (4) M/s. Vijay Tyresoles, (5) M/s. Iqbal Marbles, (6) M/s. Durga Stones and (7) Narinder Ahluwalia. It is submitted by Mr. Bansal that the plaintiffs themselves were marlely lessess for a certain period and that the possession was handed over by the defendants who are sub-lessees to the owner who in turn ported with possession of the property in the names or the aforesaid persons we have heard Mr. Bansal to a great extent. To our mind it appears that taking advantage of the stay order granted by this Court and during of the appeal the appellants parted with possession of. the property in question, shackles were put on the respondents-plaintiffs from taking any action to recover possession and in the meanwhile, the defendants parted with possession of the property. To us it appears prima facie that by this action defendants have interfered or tended to interfere with or obstructed or tended to obstruct the administration of justice as administered by this Court and we are of the prima facie opinion that a criminal contempt has been committed.

(3.) There are two appellants. The first appellant Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta need not be proceeded against as it appears from the application (C.M. 786/86) that the first appellant was never in possession of the property since October 1979 and that it was only the second appellant who was in possession and was carrying on business at the property in question. The notice issued to the first appellant is discharged. We will proceed to issue notice of criminal contempt to the second appellant under the provisions of the Contempt to the second appellant under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The notice will be given to.him tomorrow and he shall appear in court in person.