YASHODABAI Vs. NARAYANDAS GOKULDAS SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitioners reflect a very sorry state of affairs and they demonstrate how the delay in the system of administration of justice may, possibly, result in defeating the justice of the matter. The two contempt petitions arise out of the reference made by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, on the 30th August, 1980. It appears that though only one reference was made on 30th August, 1980 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, to this Court, the office has numbered the proceedings initially as Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1980 and again thereafter as Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1981 on a letter dated 1-9-1980 received from the District Judge, Pune. Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1982 appears to be on the basis of the reference made by the learned trial Judge on 30th August, 1980. Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1981 has been numbered on ht bvais o0f the letter dated 1-9-1980 received from the District Judge, Pune. Rule in Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1980 was issued on November 20, 1980, whereas in contempt Petition No. 6 of 1981, Rule was issued on January 29, 1981. However, both the petitions can be disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Yoshodabai had filed Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 1959 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, for dissolution of the partnership and for other ancilliary reliefs. The said proceedings reached the High Court in First Appeal No. 44 of 1964 which was disposed of as per the consent terms filed in this Court on the 25th September, 1964. Thereafter, proceedings for final decree were pending in the trial Court. In the said proceedings in the trial Court, the legal representatives of original defendant No. 8 alleged that out of the large number of immovable properties belonging to the Firm, some properties were lying vacant. The legal representatives of original defendant No. 8 identified two properties which were lying vacant viz. House No. 163/64, Raviwar Peth, Pune, and the other was the adjoining property occupied by Pandit and Sons. The legal representatives of original defendant No. 8 stated that defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7 were likely to induct new tenants and/or create third party rights which would adversely affect the final decree proceedings pending in the trial Court and hence, the prayer was that the said defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 should be restrained by an order of injunction from inducting any other tenant or handing over possession of the said premises. On the 25th January, 1973 itself, an ad-interim order was passed in the presence of the said defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 restraining them from inducting any new tenant or from handing over possession of any premises out of the suit properties until further orders. There is no controversy that the said injunction was served upon defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7, who are the alleged contemners in these two contempt petitions. Defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7 also filed their reply on the 5th February, 1973 in the trial Court and raised several contentions in support of their plea that the ad-interim order of injunction should be vacated. Admittedly, however, no order was passed on the said say of the said defendants and the ad-interim order dated 25th January, 1973 continued to remain in force.

(3.) IN the mean while, that is to say - between 25th January, 1973 (when the ad-interim order was passed) and 13th November, 1975 (when the contempt application was made by the legal representatives of original defendant No. 8 in the trial Court,) it appears that defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7 committed a breach of the order of injunction by getting one of the premises vacated from M/s. Ashok Cycle Trading Co. , in whose place Shri Mahendrakumar S. Agarwal was inducted as a tenant in Suit House No. 161, Budhwar peth, pune. In their application dated 13th November, 1975, the legal representatives of 8th defendant specifically averred that in spite of the said order of injunction dated 25th January, 1973, defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7 committed a breach of the said order and had inducted the said Mahendrakumar Agarwal as a tenant after evicting M/s. Ashok Cycle Trading Co. Though the exact date is not mentioned in the application, it appears from the evidence that Mahendrakumar Agarwal was inducted sometime in April 1975. To this application dated 13th November, 1975, Exh. 793 in the lower Court, defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 7 have filed their reply, which is at Exh. 807, dated 16th December, 1976. It is true that the said defendants denied that they had inducted Mahendrakumar Agarwal in the premises in dispute. It was also denied that any consideration was accepted from Mahendrakumar Agarwal, who was the new tenant in the said premises. The defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 also contended that on merits, the order of injunction was uncalled for. This say was filed by defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 as far back as on 16th December, 1976 in reply to the application dated 13th November, 1975 alleging that contempt was committed by defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 7.