LAL CHAND Vs. DHARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in order dtd. 17/2/2022, passed by this Court in CWP No. 719 of 2022, whereby this Court while directing the learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions ordered that till the next date of hearing, head Office building of respondent No.4 shall not be leased out/rented out. Since despite there being aforesaid order, respondent leased out the Head Office building on respondent No.4, to M/s Harsh Industries, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for initiation of action against the respondent.

(2.) Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that head office building of respondent No.4 was leased out/rented out to the M/s Harsh Industries on 1/3/2022, but since interim order was not extended on 28/2/2022, respondent remained under the impression that interim order dated 17. 2.2022 has lost its efficacy.

(3.) Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since factum with respect to pendency of the case was very much in the knowledge of the respondent, there was no occasion for him to lease out the property in question, but there appears to be merit in the contention of the Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the respondent that since interim order was operative till 28/2/2022 and same was not extended thereafter, there was no reason for the respondent to not to let out the premises to the third party as detailed herein above. He submits that since property in question came to be leased out to third party on 1/3/2022, no action of the respondent can be said to be contumacious.