SOHNA RAM Vs. CHAMELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is between father and son. Earlier, on a suit filed by Sohna Ram, the father, a consent decree was passed on the statements of Chamela Ram and his brothers admitting the claim that Sohna Ram was owner in possession of the property in dispute and he should deal with the property as he would like. Property in dispute consisted of a house and agricultural land. In spite of the aforesaid decree, Chamela Ram interfered with the possession of his father Sohna Ram by occupying portion of the house and not allowing Sohna Ram to enter therein.

(2.) In Contempt Petition 923 of 1989 which was disposed of on May 9, 1990 by M.R. Agnihotri, J. taking into consideration the relationship between the parties instead of sending Chamela Ram to jail only a direction was given to him to vacate the portion of property in dispute in his possession within fifteen days, failing which proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against him. Since Chamela Ram respondent failed to comply with the directions aforesaid, the present petition for taking contempt proceedings was filed.

(3.) On show cause notice being issued, Chamela Ram filed reply inter alia alleging that by misrepresentation his statement was got recorded in the civil suit resulting in passing of the decree. In fact, he was already in possession of the house in dispute. After the decree, contempt proceedings were also taken in execution, however, the same were decided against the decree-holder, holding that Chamela Ram was already in possession and he did not disobey the decree of the Civil Court. These facts were concealed by Sohna Ram by filing the present petition. In the rejoinder filed by Sohna Ram, it is stated that these facts were brought to the notice of M.R. Agnihotri, J. in the previous petition and in L.P.A. filed against the orders of Agnihotri, J. wherein these facts were also mentioned.