GOVIND KAUR Vs. HARDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated December 9, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court by which he held the appellant guilty for contempt of court and sentenced her to one month's simple imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and costs of the application.

(2.) THE appellant and respondent will hereinafter be referred as non -applicant and applicant respectively. The applicant instituted a suit for ejectment against the, non -applicant, in regard to shop No. 6 and certain other premises situate on Station Road Jodhpur. The suit was decreed by the Munsif city, Jodhpur on February 5, 1972. An appeal was preferred. The appellant's suit in respect of shop No. 5 was dismissed and for other premises, the decree was maintained on August 28, 1973 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. A second appeal was lodged by the non applicant. In the second appeal decree for eviction regarding shop No. 6 was maintained where as the decree pertaining, to the open land was set aside on March 13, 1980. Operative portion of the judgment of this Court is, as under: In the result, the appeal No. 476 of 1973 filed by Govind Kaur, is partly allowed. The plaintiff's decree for eviction regarding shop. No. 6 is maintained, whereas the decree in respect of the open land, is set aside. The defendant No. 1 shall be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 32/ - per month with effect from the date possession over shop No. 6 is delivered by her to the plaintiff. The decree in respect of shop No. 5 passed -by the first Appellate Court, is maintained. Consequently, appeal No. 7 of 1974 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of the appeals. When the judgment of the second appeal was pronounced learned Counsel for the non -applicant sought time to vacate it within two months. On that day, the non -applicant was present in person. She undertook to hand over the vacant possession of shop No. 6 to the applicant on or be fore the expiry of two months from that day. It will be useful to quote in extenso the order dated March 13, 1980; Judgment pronounced. The appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of both the appeals. (See separate judgment). Learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for time to vacate shop. No. 6. The appellant is allowed to vacate shop No. 6 within two months. The appellant undertakes to hand over vacant possession of shop No. 6 to the respondent Hardeo on or before the expiry of two months from today. The non -applicant preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5093 of 1980 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed an exparte order on May 7, 1980 staying the execution of the decree of this Court dated March 13, 1980. The Special Leave Petition of the non -applicant was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 6, 1980. On March 31, 1981, the non -applicant's adult son Richhpalsingh filed a suit against the applicant & the non -applicant for permanent injunction restraining the applicant from executing the decree. An application for issuance of temporary injunction was, also filed on October 8, 1980. The applicant -respondent, however, gave, ah undertaking that he will riot execute the decree against Richhpalsingh. The application for temporary injunction was rejected on October 22, 1980. Richhpalsingh preferred an appeal against the applicant restraining him from executing the decree against Richhpalsingh until next date. Thereafter, for continuance of the order, no separate order was passed. On November 26, 1980, an application was moved by Richhpalsingh for continuance of the order. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur passed on order to continue the ad interim order upto December 1, 1980. The order passed on December 1, 1980 was continued till December 22, 1980. The appeal preferred by Richhpalsingh was rejected by the District Judge, Jodhpur on January 17, 1981. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 36 of 1981 against the appellate Order dated January 17, 1981 was filed and that was dismissed on March 24, 1981. On October 13, 1980, an application was submitted by the applicant that non -applicant has committed a wilful breach of the undertaking given to the court and as such she should suitably be punished for contempt of court, On October 16, 1980, the learned Judge ordered issuance pf notice returnable within 10 days. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of non -applicant -appellant on November 6, 1980 stating, inter alia, that she has not committed any breach of undertaking given before this Court, what to say of wilful breach. A rejoinder to the reply was filed by the applicant on November 18, 1980. An additional reply was submitted on behalf of the non -applicant on December 1, 1980 reiterating that the non -applicant has hot committed any wilful breach of the undertaking given by her and orders of this Court with malafide intention. It may be stated here that on December 3, 1980, learned Counsel for the applicant filed certified copies of the Civil Misc. Petition No. 6566 of 1980 submitted in the Supreme Court and the affidavit of the non -applicant dated April 27, 1980 and the Court ordered, that the documents be placed on record. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated December 9, 1980 held the non -applicant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one month. He, however, directed that the imprisonment will not be carried out if the non -applicant conforms to and comply with the undertaking given to the Court and hand over vacant -possession of shop No.6 to the applicant within a week from that day. She was however, ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and the costs of the application. The learned single Judge recorded the following findings in his order: (1) that the non -applicant gave an unconditional undertaking and committed breach of that undertaking; (2) that possession of shop No. 6 was not delivered by the non -applicant to the applicant. (3) that there has been wilful breach of the undertaking by the non -applicant, and, therefore, she is guilty of contempt of court.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the non -applicant (appellant) and Mr. I.C. Maloo for the applicant -respondent.