Full Text
Translation output
M
A-12
% 11.8.2011
Present: Mr.Tejpal Shokken and Mr.Charanjit, Advocates for the peititoner.
Mr.Saleem Ahmed ,ASC with Mr.Kumar , Advocate for the respondent no.3.
Mr.Prag Chawal,Advocate for respondent no.l and 2.
+Cont. Cas.(C)No.223/2011
*
Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the contemnor no.l and 2; respondent no.3 has been arrayed as a proforma party. The contention ofthe petitioner is that the directions in the order dated
24.11.2009 have not been complied with; order dated 24.11.2009 was passed in W.P.(Crl.) No.1689/2009 wherein the FIR under
Section 448/380/34 of the IPG registered at the behest of the petitioner/complainant has been quashed. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 18.11.2009 had been arrived at between the petitioner and contemnor no.l namely Anil Maan.
Admittedly contemnor no.2 Mehtab is not a party to the MOU. This
MOU has been perused which has merely recorded that the parties have agreed to settle their disputes and FIR No.245/2009 registered under Sections 448/380/34 of the IPG will be quashed.
The parties have arrived at this mutual settlement and the MOU states that the parties have no grievance against one another. In the order dated 24.11.2009 it has been recorded that the petitioner/complainant has refunded the earnest money to the
2011:DHC:8449 accused/respondent no.l; there is also no dispute to this factum.
By way of this petition it has been contended that the respondents/contemnors are interfering in the actual physical and vacant possession of the property of the petitioner i.e. the property comprising of 130 sq. yards located in Old Lai Dora of Village
Kankkar Khera in the revenue Estate of Village Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi; they should not claim any such right in the said property. Admittedly contemnor no.2 was not a party to any MOU which was between the petitioner and the contemnor no.l; how contemnor no.2 has been arrayed as a party is not explained or answered by the petitioner. Even the MOU dated 18.11.2009 on the basis of which this contempt petition has been filed does not accord any right to the petitioner whereby it has been specifically undertaken by the contemnor no.l that he would not interfere in the physical enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the court; it has wasted the valuable and precious time of the court; it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee. Registrar General/will ensure the compliance ofthis order.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
AUGUST 11,2011 nandan
2011:DHC:8449
A-12
% 11.8.2011
Present: Mr.Tejpal Shokken and Mr.Charanjit, Advocates for the peititoner.
Mr.Saleem Ahmed ,ASC with Mr.Kumar , Advocate for the respondent no.3.
Mr.Prag Chawal,Advocate for respondent no.l and 2.
+Cont. Cas.(C)No.223/2011
*
Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the contemnor no.l and 2; respondent no.3 has been arrayed as a proforma party. The contention ofthe petitioner is that the directions in the order dated
24.11.2009 have not been complied with; order dated 24.11.2009 was passed in W.P.(Crl.) No.1689/2009 wherein the FIR under
Section 448/380/34 of the IPG registered at the behest of the petitioner/complainant has been quashed. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 18.11.2009 had been arrived at between the petitioner and contemnor no.l namely Anil Maan.
Admittedly contemnor no.2 Mehtab is not a party to the MOU. This
MOU has been perused which has merely recorded that the parties have agreed to settle their disputes and FIR No.245/2009 registered under Sections 448/380/34 of the IPG will be quashed.
The parties have arrived at this mutual settlement and the MOU states that the parties have no grievance against one another. In the order dated 24.11.2009 it has been recorded that the petitioner/complainant has refunded the earnest money to the
2011:DHC:8449 accused/respondent no.l; there is also no dispute to this factum.
By way of this petition it has been contended that the respondents/contemnors are interfering in the actual physical and vacant possession of the property of the petitioner i.e. the property comprising of 130 sq. yards located in Old Lai Dora of Village
Kankkar Khera in the revenue Estate of Village Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi; they should not claim any such right in the said property. Admittedly contemnor no.2 was not a party to any MOU which was between the petitioner and the contemnor no.l; how contemnor no.2 has been arrayed as a party is not explained or answered by the petitioner. Even the MOU dated 18.11.2009 on the basis of which this contempt petition has been filed does not accord any right to the petitioner whereby it has been specifically undertaken by the contemnor no.l that he would not interfere in the physical enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the court; it has wasted the valuable and precious time of the court; it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee. Registrar General/will ensure the compliance ofthis order.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
AUGUST 11,2011 nandan
2011:DHC:8449
JUDGMENT