JINENDER KUMAR Vs. JAI KISHAN AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed on the allegation that the respondent (the alleged contemnor) has violated an undertaking given to this court on 28.01.2002. It is alleged that the respondent had undertaken that he would not carry out any unauthorised construction in the kiosk which was situated towards the south of Shop No.414, New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi which had been alloted to him by the MCD and which would result in obstructing free ingress and egress to the shop of the petitioner (Shop No.414, New Lajpat Rai Market) or in any manner interfere in the free flow of air and light to the said premises.

(2.) THE undertaking in question had been given by the respondent in suit No. 1572/1994 which had been filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The said undertaking dated 28.01.2002 which forms part of the settlement has been marked as Exhibit PW1/1 and the same reads as under :

(3.) IT is also relevant to note the order dated 02.09.2005 passed by this court in this contempt petition. A reading of the said order indicates that the suit (CS(OS) 1572/1994) had been filed for mandatory injunction by the petitioner (herein) against the respondent alleging that unauthorised construction had been carried out by the respondent in the said kiosk. It was also noted that the defendant (respondent herein) had given the said undertaking of 28.01.2002. The petitioner had alleged in this petition that the respondent had carried out unauthorised construction in violation of the undertaking given to the court. It was also noted in the order dated 02.09.2005 that the court had directed the petitioner to file a detailed affidavit in respect of the allegations. Consequent to such a direction, the petitioner had filed a supplementary affidavit on 05.02.2005 wherein the plea was taken that the unauthorised construction was carried out by the respondent on the night intervening 21 -22/08/2002. The order notes that this fact was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In this background, the court observed :