Full Text
CS(OS) 2207/2014
M/S PARAMOUNT RICE PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : None.
Through : Mr. Mohan Vidhani and Mr. Sunil Aryan, Advocates
CCP(O)No.38/2015 (by the defendant u/Secs.11 & 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
JUDGMENT
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the defendant stating inter alia that the plaintiff is in contempt of the order dated 22.9.2014.
2. Mr. Vidhani, learned counsel for the applicant states that on 22.9.2014, it had been duly recorded by the predecessor Bench that the parties had resolved their disputes and the main terms and conditions of the settlement were also made a part of the aforesaid order. Thereafter, the parties were directed to file a joint application in terms of their settlement. However, the joint application was not filed by the parties. CS(OS) 2207/2014 2015:DHC:3498
3. Finally, on 19.11.2014, it was recorded that a settlement was not possible in the matter and resultantly, counsel for the defendant was directed to file a written statement, with a copy to the plaintiff and admission/denial of documents was directed to be undertaken before the Joint Registrar on 20.2.2015. On the same date, an order was passed in I.A.No.13632/2014, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, recording inter alia that as agreed, the interim order dated 25.7.2014 was being made absolute and the defendant would be entitled to use the numerical “1451” and the packaging material lying with her shall be preserved and produced in the Court as and when required.
4. Now, the present petition has been filed by the defendant stating inter alia that the very fact that the plaintiff is insisting on seeking damages against the defendant, runs contrary to the terms and conditions of settlement as recorded on 22.9.2014 and therefore, it is in contempt of the said order.
5. The Court is not persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant and is disinclined to entertain the present petition in the light of the subsequent order dated 19.11.2014, wherein it was clearly recorded that a settlement was not possible in the case and the defendant was directed to take steps in the suit by filing a written statement. Records reveal that the defendant has filed her written statement and the case is listed before the Joint Registrar on 3.8.2015 for admission/denial of documents.
6. That the compromise had fallen through is quite apparent from a perusal of the order dated 19.11.2014 when parties were directed to complete the pleadings in the suit. In the given background, merely because the plaintiff had declined to sign the compromise application that learned counsel for the defendant had drafted, got signed from his client and forwarded to the other side, would not be a ground for this Court to invoke its powers under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. The petition is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed. HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 17, 2015 sk