KARTIKEYA KAPUR Vs. KIM SUKH SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTEMPT is averred of the order dated 11th November, 2009 in RFA no. 400/2009. The trial court had passed a decree for possession against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner herein and the respondent had preferred an appeal there against to this court. During the hearing of the RFA before this court, the parties arrived at a settlement and which was recorded in the order dated 11th November, 2009. The respondent was granted time to deliver possession of the premises and the respondent also agreed to pay enhanced amounts to the petitioner till then. Clause 9 of the settlement recorded by this court is as under:-"9. It is further agreed by the parties that in case the appellant defaults in paying any of the installments as fixed above, the respondent shall be entitled to seek revival of the execution proceedings immediately. "

(2.) THE respondent also undertook to file an affidavit in terms of the settlement recorded in the order of that date. Affidavit was so filed.

(3.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has defaulted in making the payments which he had agreed to make in terms of the settlement recorded in the order aforesaid of this court. He also contends that the affidavit filed by the respondent in pursuance to the order aforesaid is an undertaking to the court. On the said premise this contempt petition is filed. The counsel anticipating the objections of this court relies upon Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Nargang (2006) 11 SCC 114 and Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya (2004) 1 SCC to contend that merely because the order is executable is no ground for not initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.