KAILASH NATH BHARGAVA Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present contempt petition under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts, Act has been filed against the opposite parties for punishing them for the disobedience of the, order passed by this Court. The facts of this case are startling which compelled the petitioner to approach this court.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the building known as Ayodhya Bhawan in Mohalla Mac Robertsganj, Kanpur City. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 were the tenants and the office of the L.I.U. was situated in the, said building. The petitioner filed a suit against the opposite parties for ejectment from the said property in the Court of the Judges Small Causes which was decided by the Judge Small Causes Court. The opposite parties preferred a revision in this Court which was dismissed on 25-2-1983. They feeling dissatisfied against the said order filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India which too was summarily dismissed. Consequently the decree, which had become final, was put into execution by the petitioner. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed objections under S.47 of the Civil P.C. in the execution proceedings, which were rejected. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 it appears, in order to delay the execution of the decree filed a revision in this Court against the order rejecting their objections. The said revision was dismissed by this Court on 12-1-1988 and in that revision an undertaking was given by the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties that they would vacate the disputed premises by the 31st of May, 1988.

(3.) Since the undertaking given by the learned Chief Standing Counsel was not honoured by the Opposite Parties, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 403 of 1988 on 14-6-1988 and in that contempt petition Mr. Yashpal Singh, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar. Opposite Party No. 1, and Mr. Anurag Goel, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Opposite party No. 2 were directed on 3-8-1988 to appear before this court in person and show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying the orders passed by this Court, but before the notices on the aforesaid Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No. 1 was transferred from Kanpur Nagar and Opposite Party No. 2 proceeded to Canada in connection with some training.