JAMNA DATWANI Vs. KISHIN DATWANI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.20444/2015 (for delay)

(2.) If one reads the said order, three essential features are reflected. Firstly, that no case of 'wilful disobedience' of the order dated 2.5.2014 passed by the Division Bench was held to be made out. Secondly, even if it is assumed that there was disobedience on the part of the respondent is made out, initiation of contempt proceedings being a discretionary power to be exercised by the court and the petitioner cannot claim issuance of notice to the respondent as a matter of right more so when there is an alternative remedy of invoking provision under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and lastly, in essence, the petitioner was seeking recovery of monies from the respondent, her son, which in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, 2012 4 SCC 307 could be effected by filing execution petition.

(3.) By the present review petition, a fresh attempt seems to have been made to convince the court with regard to initiation of contempt proceedings by urging that there is an error apparent on the face of the record; however, if one sees the written submissions and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in essence, an attempt is made to reargue the matter afresh and get the notices issued. While doing so, it has been pointed out that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench which had passed the order in question had issued notice to the other son who fell in line unfortunately the present respondent was not a party at that point of time in the said contempt petition. Secondly, provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC cannot be invoked as this is not an order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Lastly, it has been contended that the respondent does not have any property in India. Therefore, the order could not be enacted.