PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. HARNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of inter alia Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), Order 39 Rule 2a of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it ought to be mentioned that on account of the fact that the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court had been raised from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 20 lakhs, the suit [cs (OS) 695/1990] stood transferred to the district Court and the same is pending before the court of the Additional district Judge, Tis Hazari. The suit has been renumbered as Suit No. 609/2006. Had the present petition been only under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2a of cpc, the same would also have had to be transferred to the District Court. However, since the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have also been invoked, this petition has been treated by this court as one under Section 12 of the said Act. It is also pertinent to note that by an order dated 06. 10. 2005, my learned predecessor had directed that the contempt applications be separated from the suit.

(2.) SECTION 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt to mean willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines contempt of court to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. The punishment for contempt of court is prescribed under Section 12 which, so much as is relevant, reads as under:-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the respondent No. 1 (Smt Harnam Kaur) passed away. He submits that, therefore, the contempt petitions would continue only in respect of two respondents, i. e. , Respondent No. 2 (Mrs Mahinder Kaur) and the respondent No. 3 (Mr Jagjit Singh ). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said respondents have been guilty of willfully disobeying the order of this court passed on 14. 03. 1990 in an application (IA No. 1915/1990) in s. No. 695/1990 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. The said order [order dated