VIJAY KRISHAN GOSWAMI Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was opposite party in contempt application, has directed this appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 14 July, 1993. By the said order the learned Single Judge has granted time to the appellant and Jai Krishan Goswami to deliver possession of the premises in question to* the respondent Suresh Chand Jain by 28th July, 1993. In case of failure to comply with this direction the respondent Suresh Chand Jain has been granted liberty to approach the District Judge who has been directed to take appropriate steps to get the premises vacated through police force after seeking the help of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police and to keep the possession of premises under his control till further orders of the Court.

(2.) THE respondent Suresh Chand Jain had obtained ex parte decree against the opposite parties in the contempt application, namely, Jai Krishan Goswami, Vijai Krishan Goswami and Smt. Manju Sharma for eviction from the property in question. This decree was affirmed on 22nd January, 1987. THE decree was challenged in this Court through the Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1987. THE writ petition was filed by the appellant and his brother, Jai Krishan Goswami and Smt. Manju Sharma was impleaded therein as a respondent. Smt. Manju Sharma did not put in appearance in the proceedings. THE writ petition was ultimately dismissed by judgment and order dated 12th May, 1992. Subject to the writ petitioners giving undertaking before the Judge Small Causes Court within three weeks of the receipt of certified copy of the judgment, to deliver possession to the respondent in vacant state, three months . time was allowed to the writ petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Against this judgment special leave petition was filed before their Lordships of the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on 9th July, 1992.

(3.) ON the aforesaid application the learned Single Judge issued notice on 21st October, 1992 against all the three opposite parties directing them to show-cause why action for disobedience of the order dated 12th May, 1992 and the undertaking furnished by them on 2nd July, 1992 before the Additional Munsif, Mathura be not taken against them. After service of notice the appellant and his brother Jai Krishan Goswami appeared before the learned Single Judge on 12th May, 1993 through their respective counsel, Sri V. K. Burman and Sri Janardan Sahai. Sri Jai Krishan Goswami appeared personally also. The appellant Vijai Krishan Goswami was not present personally. Neither of them filed his return to the contempt notice. The learned Single Judge directed them to present on the next date of hearing viz. 14th July. 1993. Smt. Manju Sharma had remained unserved. Accordingly fresh notice was directed to be issued to her.