AHMED SAYEED Vs. MOHAMMAD MUSSLIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Vide my order dt.l2.12.95, I have sentenced contemnors 1 to 3 to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 , failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I have been told that fine has been paid by the contemnors. On that date Ms.Anju Lal appeared for respondent no.6 and counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply to the application filed by respondent no.6, which is an application u/S 151 read with Order VII, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) . Mr.G.N. Aggarwal, now appearing for respondent no.6 has contended that no notice of contempt was issued to respondent no.6 as per order of this Court dt.l8.9.92 and therefore, respondent no.6 is not a party in the contempt proceedings. He has also contended that no undertaking of any nature whatsoever, was given by raspondent no.6 regarding tenanted premises. In support of his arguments, Mr.Aggarwal has relied up AIR 1979, SC 1528 to contend that respondent no.6 is not bound by the undertaking, if any, given by her husband or sons. Mr. Aggarwal has further contended that as a matter of fact on 23.7.92, Ahmed Sayeed, landlord of the property in question entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondent no.6 for a total consideration of Rs.l,80,000.00 , out of which Rs.20,000.00 was paid by the respondent no.6 to Ahmed Sayeed as earnest money in cash. He has further contended that on the same day itself, Ahmed Sayeed also intered into an agreement with respondent no.6 under which he agreed that the initial decree obtained by Ahmed Sayeed against Mohd. Hanif, husband of respondent no.6 stands satisfied.

(3.) . On the other hand Mr.Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Contempt petition has contended that inspite of the undertaking given by Mohd. Hanif and his three sons to vacate the premises on or before 31st July, 1992, the tenanted premises are still occupied by respondent no.6, who is the legal heir of deceased Mohd. Hanif being his widow, Mohd. Hanif was the revisioner in CR 693/90. He has further contended that Mohd. Hanif died on 31.7.92 and alleged agreements dt-23.7.92 are fabricated documents as will be borne out from the fact that matter was listed in Court in Civil Revision on 25.3.92 and the same was adjourned to 24.8.92. None appeared for the petitioner on that date and counsel for the respondent made a statement that the possession of premises has not been handed over by the petitioners as per undertaking given by them. Again on 19.11.92 the Court renotified the matter. On 26.3.93 the Court recorded that the petitioner was to hand-over the possession by 31st July, 1992 in accordance with the undertaking. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the possession so far has not been handed over.