VIJAY BAHADUR TEWARI Vs. BRIJ CHANDER RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Gulati, J. This is an application under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The complaint is that the party has committed breach of an order dated 20. 2. 1987 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7068 of 1986 Vijay Bahadur Tewari and another versus Bahadur Singh and others. The order alleged to have been breached reads as under:- "issue notice. Meanwhile the trial court shall direct Sir Brij Chand Roy the Receiver to submit accounts in respect of the property placed under his charge and also to deposit the amount realised in capacity as the Receiver after deduction of the requisite expenses. "

(2.) IN response to the show cause notice, the opposite party has filed his defence. The defence taken is that so far as the crops of 1986 was concerned, it was in the posse ssion of the applicant which he never retur ned to the opposite party. As regards the year 1987 the case taken up is that the accounts were duly submitted before the court below on 8. 9. 1988. IN support of this assertion Annexure-1 to the counter affi davit has been filed. IN the rejoinder affidavit the defence taken by the Opposite Party is not disputed. 3. However, the learned counsel for the applicant raised two submissions. His first submission was that the accounts for the period subsequent to the year 1987 have not been filed by the opposite party. It may be noted that this application for contempt was filed on 16. 9. 1988. There is no averment whatsoever as regards the non-submission of the accounts for the period subsequent to the year 1987. IN this view of the matter it would not be proper to take notice of this submission which is purely in the realm of question of fact more so without affording any opportunity of denial to the other side. The second submission was that the opposite party has spent certain amount without taking proper sanction as was required of him. It was also urged that there was embezzlement of some amount by the opp. party. I am afraid these submissions cannot be gone into in these proceedings. What is required to be seen is whether the accounts have factually been submitted by the oppo site party as directed in the order passed in the writ petition extracted earlier. The remedy of the applicant with regard to the submission may lie elsewhere. 4. As observed earlier since the opposite party has already submitted the accounts the order dated 20. 2. 1987 stood complied with its terms. 5. For what has been stated above this application is without any merit and is reje cted. Notice issued to the opposite party is hereby discharged. 6. A certified copy of this order may be given to the parties within one week on payment of usual charges. Application Rejected. .