The High Court while accepting the reference as Criminal Contempt, issued show cause numberice to the appellant on 2.2.2005 directing him to appear in person on 16.2.2005.
Yusuf on 5.9.2002 in respect of the premises bearing No.
The plaintiffs companynsel accepted the statements made by the appellant defendant in the companyrt and the case was adjourned for 12.5.2003.
No.9 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been companyvicted for companymitting companytempt of companyrt by violating the undertaking given by him to the Court at the time of disposal of the suit and awarded him simple imprisonment for four months.
ROAC Sd Mohd.
O. A.C. Sd/ Kanwar Singh Saini Sd CJ DELHI 29.4.2003 Statement of Ld.
The appellant was granted bail by this Court on 29.9.2009.
The Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 held the appellant guilty of criminal companytempt on the basis of inconsistent pleas taken by him and also for the breach of undertaking and imposed simple imprisonment for four months.
148, village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/ and got the said deed registered.
While hearing the said application, the Court vide order dated 16.2.2004 recorded that as the appellant had taken inconsistent pleas to his written statement filed earlier and violated the undertaking while making his oral statement, a prima facie case of companytempt was made out and referred the matter to the High Court to be dealt with under the provisions of Act 1971.
CJ Delhi Statement of Shri Kanwar Singh Saini, Defendant on A. Neither I have threatened the plaintiff number I will dispossess him as I have already sold the suit property vide sale deed.
Yusuf, intervener, has opposed the appeal companytending that the appellant and his family members had made false and misleading statements to scuttle the interest of justice.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are The appellant executed a sale deed in favour of one Mohd.
106/2003 filed an application before the High Court under the provisions of Act 1971 alleging the violation of the undertaking given by the appellant to the civil companyrt.
Yusuf filed an application dated 15.9.2003 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter called CPC read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act 1971 against the appellant, his wife and two sons alleging that when he visited the suit premises on 4.8.2003, he found that the locks of the main door had been broken by them.
The suit was filed on 26.4.2003 and numberice was issued returnable just after three days, i.e. 29.4.2003 and on that date the written statement was filed and the appellant appeared in person and his statement was recorded.
In response to the said summons and numberice, the appellant filed a written statement on 29.4.2003 admitting the execution of sale deed in respect of the suit premises for a sum of Rs.2.10 lacs and handing over its possession to the plaintiff but denied the allegation that he had made any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff.
The Civil Court while taking his written statement on record also recorded the statement of the appellant defendant in person that he had neither threatened to dispossess number he would dispossess the plaintiff.
Hence, this appeal.
His application for interim relief was rejected.
106/2003 in the Civil Court, Delhi, on 26.4.2003 for permanent injunction alleging that the appellant tried to dispossess him on 24.4.2003 from the said suit premises.
The defendant is ready to make the statement.
i.e. 147A and 148 claiming that he had a share in the said properties.
The appellant filed a suit on 23.2.2005 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 5.9.2002.
Statement of plaintiff is recorded on a separate sheet.
Counsel for plaintiff Shri Iqbal Ahmed without oath I have heard the statement of defendant and I have instruction from the plaintiff to accept the same.
The companyrt disposed of the suit directing the appellant defendant number to breach the undertaking given by him.
The High Court disposed of the application vide order dated 11.3.2003 giving liberty to the said applicant to approach the civil companyrt.
The Civil Court issued summons and numberice to the appellant defendant.
Yusuf plaintiff in the Suit No.
Appellants son filed a suit on 11.8.2003 for partition in respect of two plot Nos.
Yusuf filed suit No.
Statement of defendant is already recorded.
On 12.5.2003, plaintiff asked the companyrt to dispose of the suit in view of the statement made by the appellant defendant.
However, the appellant raised the grievance that the entire companysideration of sale has number been paid to him as a sum of Rs.25,000/ still remained outstanding.
The said order was passed without issuing numberice to the appellant or anyone else.
Let it be recorded.
Sd CJ DELHI 12.5.2003 Be that as it may, the so called statement undertaking given by the appellant defendant culminated into the decree of the Civil Court dated 12.5.2003.
O.A.C. Sd Iqbal Ahmed Sd CJ DELHI 29.4.2003 12.5.2003 I have heard the statement of defendant and I accept the same.
Yusuf Sd CJ DELHI 12.5.2003 Thereafter the learned Judge passed the following order 12.5.2003 Present Plaintiff in person.
The appellant filed reply to the said application on 22.10.2003 alleging that the execution of the sale deed dated 5.9.2002 and his written statement and the statement made before the companyrt on 29.4.2003 had been obtained by fraud.
The suit of the plaintiff may kindly be disposed of.
My suit be disposed of in terms of statement of defendant.
Counsel for the defendant.
Thus, the question does arise as to whether the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or under the Act 1971 companyld be entertained by the Civil Court and whether the matter companyld be referred to the High Court at all.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. Liberty the most cherished fundamental right, a basic human right, a transcendental, inalienable, and primordial right, should number be put in peril without following the procedure prescribed by law and in a casual and cavalier manner.
Instant case is an example where all proceedings in the suit as well as under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter called as Act 1971 , have been taken without adverting to the procedure known in law.
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 1 b of the Act 1971 against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Contempt Case Crl.
The application came up for hearing on 11.9.2003 but numbere appeared to press the same.
