HARIHARRAO PANDURANGRAO PATWARDHAN Vs. MANOJKUMAR MAHAVIR SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that in a Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1986 the parties had filed a compromise pursis and a compromise decree was passed on the basis of the said Compromise Pursis on 10-6-1992. By Resolution dated 28-7-1992 the Municipal Council had ratified the compromise pursis by its Resolution No. 478. According to the petitioner, the subsequent Resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 30-5-1997 declaring the reservation in respect of the land which was subject matter of the compromise decree amounts to flouting of the compromise decree, and therefore, it amounts to contempt of Court committed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 12. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition for relief to punish the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the compromise decree. The petitioner also appears to have challenged the said resolution before the District Collector. The District Collector appears to have stayed the said resolution.

(2.) THE petitioner in his anxiety to uphold the majesty of law and the prestige of the Court of law has complained in the present contempt petition that the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 could not have acted in any manner contrary to the compromise decree. By reserving the plot which was the subject-matter of the compromise decree they have deliberately and wilfully committed contempt of Court. According to the petitioner, he was more concerned for the honour of the Court of law, and therefore, he seeks the orders from this Court to deal with the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 for committing contempt of Court in accordance with law.

(3.) SHRI Patwardhan, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 submitted that his clients have not committed any act of contempt of Court and they have not flouted or violated the compromise decree in any manner. He was pointed out that the respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit to that effect. Alternatively however the learned Advocate submits that assuming that there was disobedience of the compromise decree it does not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In support of his submission he has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court, in (Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin and another), A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1528 : 1980 (3) S. C. C. 47. I have gone through the said decision cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 12. The relevant observations of their Lordship in paragraphs 7, 10 and 11, are reproduced below :