Full Text
Cont. Cas. (C) No.625 of 2014
Date of Decision: 04 September, 2014
SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA …… Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.G. Vacher, Advocate.
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 5.10.2009.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a suit for eviction against the respondent which was referred to the Mediation Centre, where a settlement was arrived at on 22.9.2009 and the matter was sent back to the court. On the basis of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre, the court passed the following order on 5.10.2009:- 2014:DHC:4425
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has vacated the premises, however, he has failed to pay the amount @ Rs.7,000/- per month in terms of the agreement with effect from 1.7.2007 till 30.6.2013 and, therefore, he has violated the undertaking having been given to the court and accordingly, he deserves to be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act. For the purpose of canvassing his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Another; (2004) 1 SCC 360 and Surinder Kaur & Ors. vs. Pritam Singh & Ors.; 154 (2008) DLT 598.
5. I have gone through both the judgments. In Bank of Baroda’s case (supra), no doubt the court has held that a wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court would tantamount to civil contempt but in the instant case, there is no undertaking or assurance given by the respondent to the court. The undertaking and assurance which has been given by the respondent, has been given to the petitioner before the Mediation Centre. Apart from this fact that the undertaking recorded before the Mediation Centre cannot be treated to be one given to the court unless and until a follow-up statement of the parties is recorded in court in support of the settlement. Therefore, so far as the judgment of Bank of Baroda’s case (supra) is concerned, that is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. As regards Surinder Kaur’s judgment (supra), it is a case where a compromise has been arrived at before the Mediation Centre in a suit for partition, which is subsequently reduced into writing and, therefore, the matter was sent to the court where, on the basis of the compromise recorded before the Mediation Centre, the follow-up statement of the parties has been recorded and a decree on the basis of settlement between the parties has been passed.
7. The question which was involved before the court was with regard to the validity of the statement which is recorded before the Mediation Centre and as to how the same is to be dealt with. It was in this context that the learned single judge of this court has observed in para 5 as under:-
8. Rule Nos.24 and 25 of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 which, if read in proper perspective, would show that the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties has to be followed up by the parties with the recording of their unequivocal statement before the court that they would abide by the terms of settlement.
9. Curiously, in the instant case, although the settlement has been recorded before the Mediation Centre but at the time when the matter was listed before the court on 5.10.2009, none of the parties originally were present and yet the court had passed a direction to the respondent that he shall vacate the premises and pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner/plaintiff.
10. I feel that the court ought to have, in the first instance, recorded the statement of both the parties and only then a consent decree/compromise decree could have been passed. But in the instant case, after the order was passed by the court, the plaintiff/petitioner had only appeared and got his statement recorded that he has settled the matter amicably with the defendant/respondent and the terms of settlement were proved. Merely by appearance of the plaintiff/petitioner before the court on 5.10.2009, I feel the court was not justified in passing a decree or an order dated 5.10.2009. I do not feel that there is any undertaking which has been given by the respondent to the court and, therefore, there is no question of violating the said undertaking.
11. I feel that the present contempt petition is totally misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the petitioner free to take such other remedies as may be available in law. V.K. SHALI, J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 ‘AA’