Maya Devi v. Ritika

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1572/2019 & CM APPL. 47540/2019

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25th October, 2019 in Ex. No.202/2017 titled as Ritika v.Maya Devi & Anr. The case of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor – Mrs. Maya Devi is that she purchased the flat bearing no.E-1/82, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi by a registered sale deed. It is alleged that her son and daughter-inlaw had fraudulently got a gift deed executed of which cancellation is sought in the suit. Settlement Agreement dated 27th January, 2014 was entered into between the parties whereby it was agreed that the Defendants together own 50% undivided right in the suit property. The Respondent No.1/Decree Holder – Mrs. Ritika filed the execution petition seeking enforcement of her 25% share. 2019:DHC:5689

3. An application was moved by the Petitioner that she would be willing to give her 25% share in the property to her daughter-in-law. On 3rd December, 2018, the ld. ADJ noted that the Decree Holder is not willing to accept less than Rs.15 lacs. The reserve price was fixed for auction of the property. Thereafter, on 19th July, 2019, an application filed under Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter the „Act‟), was dismissed by the ld. ADJ. Vide order dated 18th October, 2019, since the Petitioner had filed an application seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 29th January, 2019, the auction proceedings were stayed. However, on 25th October, 2018, since the revision petition, filed by the Petitioner, had been dismissed by the High Court, the auction was directed to be proceeded further.

4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the auction ought not to be permitted to proceed as irreparable injury would be caused to the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel further submits that he merely requested the ld. ADJ to hear the application on behalf of his client. A perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that the ld. ADJ had been forced to list the matter before the District Judge owing to allegations made by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner against the Presiding Officer.

5. The Court has perused the order sheets of the execution proceedings. In the order dated 3rd December, 2018, it is evident that the Court had made efforts to get the parties amicably resolved the disputes. The said order reads as under: “I have taken the pains to explain to get the parties to an amicable settlement of the dispute. DH is not ready to accept less than Rs.15 lakhs while JD has stated that she can give only Rs. 11.26 lakhs in terms of valuation report. The application seeking, postponement of process of sale is pending disposal. The reserve price of the property is fixed at Rs.45,04,904/- in terms of report of SDM, Defence Colony. Ld. Counsel for JD has submitted that in terms of para 7 of his application, the JD who is a senior citizen cannot be ousted from the suit property. JD is directed to file affidavit with regard to immovably properties owned by her and also appropriate application in case she is seeking a stay on the proceedings under the Senior Citizen Act 2007 with advance copy to the opposite side through any of the prescribed modes, failing which matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law. Put up for further proceedings on 16.01.2019.”

6. Thereafter, on 19th July, 2019 while dismissing the application filed by the Judgment Debtor under the Senior Citizens’ Act, the Court observed that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree recording the settlement dated 27th January, 2014. However, the Court concluded that the objective of the Act has been duly met and hence the application is not maintainable. The observations of the Court are as under:

8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that this matter raises various serious issues. First, unnecessary commotion appears to have been caused by the Judgement Debtor during the proceedings in the Court. The Judgement Debtor has sought to abuse the Decree Holder and lawyer for the Decree Holder in the Court itself. The matter did not end there. Ld. counsel for the Judgment Debtor also appears to have made allegations against the Judge that the Court is prejudiced in favour of the Decree Holder. Ld. counsel appearing for the Judgement Debtor submits that no allegations were made by him but only a request, for taking up the application filed for postponing the auction, was made.

9. A perusal of the order makes it extremely clear that the Presiding Officer had recorded the conduct of both the Judgement Debtor and her counsel. The Judgement Debtor was present in the Court when the events took place. Clearly, the Judgement Debtor had crossed her limits. It is the well settled position in law that allegations cannot be permitted to be made against Judicial Officers. Making scurrilous allegations, scandalising the Court and unnecessarily raising voices, using derogatory language, being disrespectful to the Court and making untenable accusations is not permissible and would constitute contempt. The order of the ld. ADJ has clearly recorded what has transpired in the Court on the said date. Such conduct either on behalf of the litigants or by counsel cannot be permitted. The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that such conduct would clearly lead to impedement in the administration of justice. Indulging in an act calculated to bring a Court or a Judge or to lower his authority is Contempt of Court, as held in Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, AIR 1992 SC 904, K.A. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan AIR 1995 SC 454 and In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra AIR1995SC2348.

10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the Judgement Debtor would prima facie warrant issuance of show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor - Smt. Maya Devi. Ordered accordingly.