Full Text
Translation output
$-28& 29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C)1023/2016& C.M.No.33049/2016
SONIDAVE Petitioner
Through Mr.Saurabh Prakash,Advocate.
CONT.CAS(C)1023/2016& C.M.No.33049/2016
SONIDAVE Petitioner
Through Mr.Saurabh Prakash,Advocate.
VERSUS
YASIN MIR Respondent
Through
Through
CONT.CAS(C)1024/2016& C.M.No.33050/2016
M/S G S BERAR& CO PVT LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Saurabh Prakash,Advocate.
M/S G S BERAR& CO PVT LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Saurabh Prakash,Advocate.
VERSUS
YASIN MIR Respondent
Through
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN
08.09.2016 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience ofjudgment dated 18^^ May,2016 passed in RFA(OS)
No.106/2015 and 107/2015, whereby a Division Bench ofthis Court had partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and had directed the respondentto pay the user charges.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent has not paid certain past arrears as well as the user charges from
February 2016 onwards.
2016:DHC:8704 However,this Court is ofthe view that as the Division Bench has passed the said order in a First Appeal, the same is capable of execution under the Code ofCivil Procedure.
The Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saint Vs. High Court of
Delhi,2012(4)SCC307has held as under:- "26. The case requires to be considered in the light ofthe aforesaid settled legal proposition. Whatever may he the circumstances, the court decreed the suit vide thejudgment and decree dated 12-5-2003. The said decree was passed on the basis ofadmission/undertaking made by the appellant on
29-4-2003 and the pleadings taken by him in his written statement. Therefore, in a case where there was any disobedience ofthe saidjudgmentand decree, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC should not have been entertained. Such an application is maintainable in a case where there is violation ofinterim injunction passed during thependency ofthe suit. In the instant case, no interim order had ever been passed. Thus, the appropriate remedy available to the decree-holder Mohd. Yusufhad been to file application for execution under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The procedure in execution of an injunction decree is same as prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2-A i.e. attachment of property and detention ofthe disobedient to set the execution ofthe order.In view thereof allsubsequentproceedinss were unwarranted.
(emphasis supplied)
In view thereof,present contempt petitions are disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioners to file execution proceedings in accordance with law.
11/ MANMOHAN,J SEPTEMBER 08,2016 KA 2016:DHC:8704
08.09.2016 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience ofjudgment dated 18^^ May,2016 passed in RFA(OS)
No.106/2015 and 107/2015, whereby a Division Bench ofthis Court had partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and had directed the respondentto pay the user charges.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent has not paid certain past arrears as well as the user charges from
February 2016 onwards.
2016:DHC:8704 However,this Court is ofthe view that as the Division Bench has passed the said order in a First Appeal, the same is capable of execution under the Code ofCivil Procedure.
The Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saint Vs. High Court of
Delhi,2012(4)SCC307has held as under:- "26. The case requires to be considered in the light ofthe aforesaid settled legal proposition. Whatever may he the circumstances, the court decreed the suit vide thejudgment and decree dated 12-5-2003. The said decree was passed on the basis ofadmission/undertaking made by the appellant on
29-4-2003 and the pleadings taken by him in his written statement. Therefore, in a case where there was any disobedience ofthe saidjudgmentand decree, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC should not have been entertained. Such an application is maintainable in a case where there is violation ofinterim injunction passed during thependency ofthe suit. In the instant case, no interim order had ever been passed. Thus, the appropriate remedy available to the decree-holder Mohd. Yusufhad been to file application for execution under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The procedure in execution of an injunction decree is same as prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2-A i.e. attachment of property and detention ofthe disobedient to set the execution ofthe order.In view thereof allsubsequentproceedinss were unwarranted.
(emphasis supplied)
In view thereof,present contempt petitions are disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioners to file execution proceedings in accordance with law.
11/ MANMOHAN,J SEPTEMBER 08,2016 KA 2016:DHC:8704
JUDGMENT