HUMA A ANSARI Vs. RAVI TUKARAM DAMODAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present reference has been made for taking action under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the then 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Aurangabad Miss. Huma A. Ansari (the petitioner is referred to a 'Presiding Officer' henceforth) against in all nine persons. Notice has been issued to respondent No.1 only by this Court. A show cause notice was issued to him and he has given reply.

(2.) The Presiding Officer joined Judiciary in August 2006 and was posted at Aurangabad from 10th June 2013. Execution Petition bearing Regular Darkhast No. 30 of 2011 was before her Court. One advocate Mr. S. R. Nehri was representing the decree holders and earlier one Mr. Nishant S. Mansingka and Mr. Survase Patil were representing judgment debtor No.1 and obstructionist. Present respondent No.1 - contemnor was representing obstructionist. The Presiding Officer has given the checkered history behind the execution petition. It is stated that, the decree holders were the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Sit No. 52 of 1993 which was filed for recovery of possession. The defendants in that suit were duly served but they did not contest, and therefore, suit was decreed exparte.

(3.) It has been further informed that, the judgment debtor No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 2001 challenging the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1993 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The said suit travelled up to Hon'ble Apex Court and was dismissed in SLA (Civil) No. 1972 of 2011 on 11-02- 2011. Therefore, the said decree in that proceeding had also attained finality. Thereafter, each judgment debtor and obstructionist had independently challenged the original decree on number of occasions on various grounds and all those orders are in favour of decree holders. Thereafter the judgment debtors raised objection in the execution petition by filing applications at Exhibit 32 and 39, again on the ground that the decree has been obtained by fraud on the strength of forged sale deed. That claim was dismissed by this Court by order dated 01-08-2013 in Writ Petition No. 8527 of 2011.